Another one bites the dust

[Non-Believer]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That’s all a bit wrong. A scheme of arrangement was explored. It wasn’t adopted. The bank spent ages in limbo, and DCS didn’t operate until in liquidation. Also DCS wasn’t funded ( still isn’t ).

KSF (IoM) wasn’t really insolvent as it’s assets always exceeded its liabilities, just the assets weren’t liquid.

Government funded the compensation. Everyone, including government, was paid out in full. Even after paying liquidation costs. The only loss to government was the substantial cost of drawing up the scheme of arrangement that went nowhere 

I knew it was something like that John, lol  thanks 👍

[0bserver]

It's 10am and there hasn't been a single sacking or resignation of a senior civil servant... what's Alf playing at?

[Boo Gay'n]

15 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

Anyone going to keep a count on salaries saved by these culls !??. 

There won’t be any saving at all – rather, a massive current year spike in expenditure, followed next year by the same costs as before.

To fire someone with just cause and without compensation is possible, but it requires good evidence and a process.  That’s why many organisations default to settlement agreements with very strong confidentiality clauses.  This allows someone to be hoofed out because their face doesn’t fit, and stops them talking about it afterwards.  You can argue the toss between the meaning of fair and unfair dismissal, but the Employment Act largely focuses on the meaning of unfair: and tribunals, such as the Ranson case, have to test the facts of the dismissal against the requirements of the law.

It is easier to reach a settlement agreement than have protracted arguing and legal proceedings, and when the employer can see that their reasons for saying ‘we just don’t want you to work for us anymore’ don’t quite cut the mustard (i.e. they know they will lose at a tribunal) settlement is better.  Employees don’t often refuse and demand their ‘day in court’, but Tinwell and Ranson did.

My understanding is that employers will often start negotiations based on offering the equivalent of what would be due under redundancy – one month’s salary per year worked.  To get a very rapid deal, that figure may be increased.  Overall, this is why there will be a massive spike in IOMG employment costs this year.

I also see big risks in all of this.  If the politicians feel that they should be let off the hook (bar the Boy Vampire) and that civil servants are the ones to be thrown under buses, not all of the victims will be the right ones (settling of scores).  The corporate knowledge of government will be reduced significantly.  All senior civil servants will start to live in fear of a visit from Caldric Randall, and their behaviour will change.  Do we really want to have the parcel of rogues in Keys boasting about how hard they are and who they have got rid of this week when they are almost all thick, spiteful and narcissistic egotists who don’t understand how their departments work in any case?  The fish rots from the head, as the Boy Vampire almost said in his epic speech yesterday.

It is really hard to see this ending well for our island.

[0bserver]

37 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

There won’t be any saving at all – rather, a massive current year spike in expenditure, followed next year by the same costs as before.

To fire someone with just cause and without compensation is possible, but it requires good evidence and a process.  That’s why many organisations default to settlement agreements with very strong confidentiality clauses.  This allows someone to be hoofed out because their face doesn’t fit, and stops them talking about it afterwards.  You can argue the toss between the meaning of fair and unfair dismissal, but the Employment Act largely focuses on the meaning of unfair: and tribunals, such as the Ranson case, have to test the facts of the dismissal against the requirements of the law.

It is easier to reach a settlement agreement than have protracted arguing and legal proceedings, and when the employer can see that their reasons for saying ‘we just don’t want you to work for us anymore’ don’t quite cut the mustard (i.e. they know they will lose at a tribunal) settlement is better.  Employees don’t often refuse and demand their ‘day in court’, but Tinwell and Ranson did.

My understanding is that employers will often start negotiations based on offering the equivalent of what would be due under redundancy – one month’s salary per year worked.  To get a very rapid deal, that figure may be increased.  Overall, this is why there will be a massive spike in IOMG employment costs this year.

I also see big risks in all of this.  If the politicians feel that they should be let off the hook (bar the Boy Vampire) and that civil servants are the ones to be thrown under buses, not all of the victims will be the right ones (settling of scores).  The corporate knowledge of government will be reduced significantly.  All senior civil servants will start to live in fear of a visit from Caldric Randall, and their behaviour will change.  Do we really want to have the parcel of rogues in Keys boasting about how hard they are and who they have got rid of this week when they are almost all thick, spiteful and narcissistic egotists who don’t understand how their departments work in any case?  The fish rots from the head, as the Boy Vampire almost said in his epic speech yesterday.

It is really hard to see this ending well for our island.

It's going to be expensive and it's going to hurt because these cuts have to be deep and have to be made quickly. 

In the long run it will do the island well.

[cissolt]

If all of this is Alfs doing then I take my hat off to him.  He is on the path to restoring my hope in him as a chief minister.

[Bandits]

19 minutes ago, cissolt said:

If all of this is Alfs doing then I take my hat off to him.  He is on the path to restoring my hope in him as a chief minister.

I think a lot of people feel that way. 

[Blackajah]

How far will AC go though?  Those who have already gone were in untenable positions after the tribunal findings.  What’s he going to do about the time / money wasters and non-jobbers (various heads of this or that bollocks) everywhere else?  What’s he doing about the Debacle of Infrastructure?   

[cissolt]

Where do these people stand if they were involved in document tampering for Ransons tribunal?

Free pass to leave the island with a gold plated pension immune from repercussions?

[Numbnuts]

1 hour ago, Boo Gay'n said:

My understanding is that employers will often start negotiations based on offering the equivalent of what would be due under redundancy – one month’s salary per year worked.  To get a very rapid deal, that figure may be increased.  Overall, this is why there will be a massive spike in IOMG employment costs this year.

Is that right , isn't it one week for every year worked after serving two years employment ??

[Roger Mexico]

50 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

It is easier to reach a settlement agreement than have protracted arguing and legal proceedings, and when the employer can see that their reasons for saying ‘we just don’t want you to work for us anymore’ don’t quite cut the mustard (i.e. they know they will lose at a tribunal) settlement is better.  Employees don’t often refuse and demand their ‘day in court’, but Tinwell and Ranson did.

But neither Tinwell nor Ranson were offered settlements as far as I can see.   Tinwell's finally came seven years after it started and five after litigation commenced (and from what John says, may still have not been finalised).  Rather than being quietly asked to leave, they were both treated appallingly in a manner designed to drive them out and destroy them mentally.  As many others have been before. 

And the government did its best to deny them their 'day in court' by all sorts of means, possibly including illegal ones.  While the 'right' people have walked away in the past with large handouts and bloated pensions, those who don't 'fit in' aren't treated so kindly.  Anything can be forgiven except competence and dedication.   

So a tribunal becomes the only option for redress, though we usually don't know what the final settlement was, even when the government loses spectacularly  And rather than accepting that they will lose and quickly settling, the government has fought quite a few to the bitter end because the egos of the management are important and, unlike with a commercial company, the costs aren't, at least to them.

Of course the 'day in court' can backfire as we saw with the Inglis case (though even that incidentally highlighted a lot of government failings) and at least in the Malone and Conie cases, we know there was enough damning evidence already public from the Ranson decision to make success unlikely.  Both had connived in the mistreatment of staff and in misleading politicians and both had been promoted for it.  So I suspect their exits will not have been marked with the prodigality of the past.

[Passing Time]

18 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Give him a chance. He’s got enough on his hands this week without dipping his toe in that particular cess pit. 

Hopefully Tim will get to grips with that one

[Andy Onchan]

12 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

It's taken the findings of a Tribunal to provoke this clearout. Where has the self-governance of the system been? The appraisals? Why were these flaws and conduct not picked up by the internal checks and balances?

Where was the critical overview of these people and their performance in what was going on?

That's why I said earlier that the Public Service Commission and the board membership arrangement is not fit for purpose. It's institutionally corrupt and must be replaced with something reflecting the real world and with greater accountability to the GMT.  

[hampsterkahn]

There has been a remarkable silence regarding Dr H Ewart who featured so prominently and so very unfavourably in the tribunal with regard to  the facts that emerged, the evidence she rather tardily provided, and  the manner in which she  delivered  it.

Attracting  quite scathing comments from the tribunal chairman and achieving the  unusual distinction for  a witness account to be deemed so unhelpful  that both  legal teams agreed to strike out quite a few paragraphs amounts to a severe condemnation for any professional.

It would be perhaps surprising if there had not been a GMC  referral. Perhaps this may affect when announcements are made  but not alter what would seem to be the inevitable 

Edited May 25, 2022 by hampsterkahn

[Declan]

Just now, hampsterkahn said:

There has been a remarkable silence regarding Dr H Ewart who featured so prominently and so very unfavourably in the tribunal with regard to  the facts that emerged, the evidence she rather tardily provided, and  the manner in which she  delivered her it.

Attracting  quite scathing comments from the tribunal chairman and achieving the  unusual distinction for  a witness account to be deemed so unhelpful  that both  legal teams agreed to strike out quite a few paragraphs amounts to a severe condemnation for any professional.

It would be perhaps surprising if there had not been a GMC  referral. Perhaps this may affect when announcements are made  but not alter what would seem to be the inevitable 

 

I'm a little uncomfortable about the clamour for her dismissal we've seen on social networks. I'm not saying there aren't issues thrown up by the tribunal, but these should fall within realm of the employer's (and maybe the profession's) disciplinary process. I don't think these need to run their course in public. 

[Boo Gay'n]

40 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

Is that right , isn't it one week for every year worked after serving two years employment ??

Apologies - yes you are right, I just checked the Redundancy Payments Act - no idea why I had the one month idea fixed in my head!