IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[cissolt]

28 minutes ago, buncha wankas said:

Quite interesting as he was talking about Malone who was the Dept interim CEO responsible for ‘not hiding documents’ until it suited them to find them mid trial.  New CEO seems to have integrity of a …….

This isn't going to end well.  Is there a transcript of her tribunal testimony?  I saw that gef mentioned it in their announcement....subtle reporting

[NoTailT]

27 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

That would be the very same Malone who is now running the show?

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=65966

Yes, that's the one.

Almost as indept as Magson.

I used to quite like Lawrie Hooper, but hes proven in recent months to be nothing more than a cock and an imbecile like he's predecessor was.

[The Old Git]

19 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I used to quite like Lawrie Hooper, but hes proven in recent months to be nothing more than a cock and an imbecile like he's predecessor was.

You only have to look at who he and lib van were backing at the last election to realise that. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by The Old Git

[Two-lane]

The Chief Executives in recent years have been:

Mark Charters: Rode a Harley, took Howard Quayle to New Zealand to find out how to run a health service. Subsequently went to St. Helena as Director of Safeguarding (lasted 6 months - presumably got fired).

Malcolm Couch: 25 or so years experience in finance and income tax. Now working in the tourist industry somewhere in the Caribbean (the last time I looked he was no longer using the title Dr. Maybe too many tourists were asking him about their arthritis).

Kathryn Magson: Degree in music, 15 years experience in banking. Now in England trying to find a child minder.

Karen Malone: Manx Electricity Authority, Manx National Heritage, Treasury. And then....

Personally I would go for someone who also had a lifetime's experience in the health industry. But what do I know.

[buncha wankas]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

The Chief Executives in recent years have been:

Mark Charters: Rode a Harley, took Howard Quayle to New Zealand to find out how to run a health service. Subsequently went to St. Helena as Director of Safeguarding (lasted 6 months - presumably got fired).

Malcolm Couch: 25 or so years experience in finance and income tax. Now working in the tourist industry somewhere in the Caribbean (the last time I looked he was no longer using the title Dr. Maybe too many tourists were asking him about their arthritis).

Kathryn Magson: Degree in music, 15 years experience in banking. Now in England trying to find a child minder.

Karen Malone: Manx Electricity Authority, Manx National Heritage, Treasury. And then....

Personally I would go for someone who also had a lifetime's experience in the health industry. But what do I know.

Do they even have a human resources in government? 

[Two-lane]

18 minutes ago, buncha wankas said:

Do they even have a human resources in government? 

It is all part of the "Anyone can be a manager - no specialist knowledge required" theory.
Go into any bookshop and you will find shelves of yellow-backed books called MSDOS5 For Dummies and similar. You will not find Nuclear Physics For Dummies, because people would open the book, see all those squiggly Greek letters and give up.
But go to the management section and there are any number of books call Management For Dummies - but they do not have that title, and they do not have a yellow cover, but nevertheless that is what they are.
Probably all the gov. manager types have read Management For Dummies and think they can now run any department. Like Magson they know how to make "bold decisions". But the decisions they make have no basis on experience and knowledge of the industry.
In fact, they are no different to politicians who change departments at the drop of a Chief Minster's whim.

They are all interchangeably useless.

 

[TheTeapot]

2 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

 You will not find Nuclear Physics For Dummies, because people would open the book, see all those squiggly Greek letters and give up.

 

[craggy_steve]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

It is all part of the "Anyone can be a manager - no specialist knowledge required" theory.
Go into any bookshop and you will find shelves of yellow-backed books called MSDOS5 For Dummies and similar. You will not find Nuclear Physics For Dummies, because people would open the book, see all those squiggly Greek letters and give up.
But go to the management section and there are any number of books call Management For Dummies - but they do not have that title, and they do not have a yellow cover, but nevertheless that is what they are.
Probably all the gov. manager types have read Management For Dummies and think they can now run any department. Like Magson they know how to make "bold decisions". But the decisions they make have no basis on experience and knowledge of the industry.
In fact, they are no different to politicians who change departments at the drop of a Chief Minster's whim.

They are all interchangeably useless.

 

Yellow Cover ...

 

[Gladys]

4 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

Do they even have a human resources in government? 

Without being snide, yes they do, all of the staff from the lowliest clerical officer, through to the CEO, and even Chief Secretary.  They are all human resources and contribute to the overall.  The human resource is the most valuable resource in any organisation. Some, and I would say the majority, do the very best they can, are diligent and take pride in their job.

Do they have an effective HR department able to support through difficult and challenging situations, to properly advise on employment issues and ready to step in to take the heat out of a situation?  If they do, are they used in the right way? Those are the real questions.

I know that was the really the question you asked, but the continual bashing of the civil service tends to forget there are good people there and it must be very demoralising to be in one of the departments which are regularly ballsing things up. 

A good HR department would recognise that, as would a good manager, and protect their valuable resource. 

A good HR department would also say "you can't do that" and a respected HR department would be heeded when they say that. 

[Ghost Ship]

[Edit:  Just to clarify my post below.  What I'm trying to say is that if IoM Govt or DHSC had an effective and confident HR function, then this situation with the Medical Director should never have arisen.  That's because an effective and confident HR function would have pointed out to the Chief Exec that they should never have been treating the Medical Director as they allegedly were... ]

=====================================================================

Don't know how to cross-quote a post from a different thread (and I don't like quoting myself!) but I did make a couple of posts on the "DOI - Fit for purpose?" thread that might be equally appropriate here as regards the importance of an effective HR function in the public sector:

"Any organisation - be it private sector or public sector - needs robust and defendable HR practices and processes in place so that, if necessary, underperforming staff can be managed out of the organisation.  Or just sacked.  And that applies just as much to the most senior employees and heads of department as it does to the most humble admin and clerical staff.

Indeed it's arguable that this is an even greater necessity in the public sector because it involves public money (often large amounts in the case of very senior staff), and the extent of the liability (eg pension rights) can be excessively costly if the employer gets it wrong.

To say, in effect, that it's too difficult to manage because you'd have to set performance targets for them, that you'd have to monitor their performance against those targets, that you'd have to gather evidence of their failure to meet those targets, and that you might get sued in an employment tribunal if you got it wrong(!) is plain crazy.  Any half competent HR department should be able to deal with that no sweat.  Get the right HR processes in place and set performance targets that can be properly measured and which require competence to achieve, and you should never go wrong.

And saying that experienced hands will will know how to cover themselves from any criticism and therefore it's not worth even trying displays what I can only call defeatism of the worst type.

The first step to achieving this is getting a strong HR department in place and giving them the political support to do the job.  It seems to me that the IoM overpays its civil servants in terms of their responsibilities so it needs to make clear to its senior CS when appointing them that that premium comes at a cost - if they don't perform they will get kicked out.

I worked in the NHS in the UK for 25 years and ended up as a reasonably senior manager.  When I joined it was quite unusual for senior staff who underperformed to be sacked.  The prevailing NHS culture was against that and Personnel (as they then were) departments were terrified of getting rid of somebody wrongly and getting hauled off to a tribunal. It wasn't how the NHS treated staff.

By the time I left the NHS things were completely different and there were robust performance management processes in place for all staff such that if necessary, anybody could be got rid off.  I've seen more than one Chief Executive of a NHS trust binned, and board level directors too.

And sometimes - even if you do get taken to a tribunal - it's cheaper to sack somebody even if you lose the case than it is to keep employing them.  But if you manage their disposal correctly, you should never lose..."

And

"... How effective and competent public sector HR managers are in the Isle of Man, I don't know.  But I'd have to say I was singularly unimpressed by that case last year where a Douglas Corporation streetcleaner had been stranded in Cyprus (or somewhere like that) because of Covid and ended up taking the corporation to a tribunal because of how they had treated him in his absence.  I was astonished that the corporation had allowed that situation to develop in the first place abd had then allowed it to reach a tribunal.  How did that happen?

Effective HR management isn't about getting rid of just anybody indiscriminately without good reason, or about getting rid of the right people for the wrong reasons.  It's about getting rid of the right people for the right reasons.  To come up with effective HR strategies to manage underperforming senior staff is not a task as difficult as re-inventing calculus..."

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Ghost Ship

[buncha wankas]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Without being snide, yes they do, all of the staff from the lowliest clerical officer, through to the CEO, and even Chief Secretary.  They are all human resources and contribute to the overall.  The human resource is the most valuable resource in any organisation. Some, and I would say the majority, do the very best they can, are diligent and take pride in their job.

Do they have an effective HR department able to support through difficult and challenging situations, to properly advise on employment issues and ready to step in to take the heat out of a situation?  If they do, are they used in the right way? Those are the real questions.

I know that was the really the question you asked, but the continual bashing of the civil service tends to forget there are good people there and it must be very demoralising to be in one of the departments which are regularly ballsing things up. 

A good HR department would recognise that, as would a good manager, and protect their valuable resource. 

A good HR department would also say "you can't do that" and a respected HR department would be heeded when they say that. 

Spot on

[Roger Mexico]

9 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

But I'd have to say I was singularly unimpressed by that case last year where a Douglas Corporation streetcleaner had been stranded in Cyprus (or somewhere like that) because of Covid and ended up taking the corporation to a tribunal because of how they had treated him in his absence.  I was astonished that the corporation had allowed that situation to develop in the first place abd had then allowed it to reach a tribunal.  How did that happen?

It's worth pointing out that the problem in the DBC case (decision is here) wasn't caused by their HR Department (which I think is only two people, one part-time), but by the director who decided she would 'save' money by clawing back the wages paid when the guy was stuck in Cyprus, even though if he had been back on the Island he would have done no more work because of lockdown.  As the Tribunal remarked (para 8):

As matters developed, it was unfortunate that the Tribunal did not hear from Ms Dana Eynon the director ultimately in charge of the Complainant who had played a pivotal but unclear role in the issues before the Tribunal.

Both she and the CEO/Town Clerk refused to appear and left the HR person to defend their decisions.  This is fairly typical of the attitude taken by public service management on the Island (I'm not surprised the English QC in the Ranson case said he had never experienced employer behaviour like it before).  There is a culture of impunity, based on belief that management class solidarity will always come first and no management behaviour, no matter how cruel, incompetent, money-wasting or reputation-destroying will ever be punished.

[Ghost Ship]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's worth pointing out that the problem in the DBC case (decision is here) wasn't caused by their HR Department (which I think is only two people, one part-time), but by the director who decided she would 'save' money by clawing back the wages paid when the guy was stuck in Cyprus, even though if he had been back on the Island he would have done no more work because of lockdown.  As the Tribunal remarked (para 8):

As matters developed, it was unfortunate that the Tribunal did not hear from Ms Dana Eynon the director ultimately in charge of the Complainant who had played a pivotal but unclear role in the issues before the Tribunal.

Both she and the CEO/Town Clerk refused to appear and left the HR person to defend their decisions.  This is fairly typical of the attitude taken by public service management on the Island (I'm not surprised the English QC in the Ranson case said he had never experienced employer behaviour like it before).  There is a culture of impunity, based on belief that management class solidarity will always come first and no management behaviour, no matter how cruel, incompetent, money-wasting or reputation-destroying will ever be punished.

And that really reinforces my point that that DHSC (or IoM govt or DBC) need an effective, confident and robust HR function.  Any HR person worth their salt should have told the manager in question: "You can't do that", and saved DBC some money and embarrassment from the outset.  (An effective HR function should also minimise the liklihood of the wrong "managers" being appointed in the first place.) 

At the start of my working life in the UK NHS I thought that HR (or as they were then called - Personnel) were a waste of space (sorry).  By the time I retired, they were the most influential people in the trust - apart from the Chief Exec and Finance Director.  And, on reflection, that was probably a good thing.  

NB - Mind you, it means you have to select the right HR people to do the job you need them to do ...

[Ghost Ship]

And lest I give the impression that everything in the IoM is crap while everything in the UK NHS is perfect, it isn't always the case - even at a prestigeous NHS trust.

Paula Vennells - Wikipedia

[The Voice of Reason]

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

What they did to those people was disgusting. Several suicides at least. I hope she burns for her role in it all as an Anglican Priest. 

I don’t understand. 
Are you an Anglican priest?

Edited February 20, 2022 by The Voice of Reason
Correct Anglican spelling