Another one bites the dust

[Kopek]

Normally an NDA would require some negotiation. The week, ten days here would probably preclude that having happened? Unless, of course, the negotiations started before the Tribunal outcome???

It does seem to be jumping before being pushed and of course, they willl have many contacts that could lead to alternative employment that may now be called in?

[Gladys]

16 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Normally an NDA would require some negotiation. The week, ten days here would probably preclude that having happened? Unless, of course, the negotiations started before the Tribunal outcome???

It does seem to be jumping before being pushed and of course, they willl have many contacts that could lead to alternative employment that may now be called in?

NDAs are often a take it or leave it option. You want the graceful departure/preservation of, say, your pension/ other money? Then sign this.

[Bandits]

29 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Normally an NDA would require some negotiation. The week, ten days here would probably preclude that having happened? Unless, of course, the negotiations started before the Tribunal outcome???

No it wouldn’t. You present them with a fait accompli. Here’s the agreement sign it now or sign it within 48 hours having consulted MERS or a lawyer. Either way you’re going. Or if you want to resign now without terms crack on we might even have a template resignation letter here to sign if you want it. 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Bandits

[Non-Believer]

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?

[Kopek]

...but with the time needed to seek legal advise, this 10 days would probably preclude that? They have their pension, that is protected, that they don't get a severance package is a consequence of the speed of their departure?

It all indicates their being  'leant' on, which is how it should be with little chance of an unfair/constructional  dismissal claim?

[Kopek]

16 minutes ago, Bandits said:

You present them with a fait accompli.

You would accept that? More fool you. Legal advice either union, private or MDA appointed QCs would be your best way forward???

[Roger Mexico]

13 minutes ago, 0bserver said:

It doesn't always mean better but in this case it will likely be better than what we have/had. 

It would also smash the inbred cycle of poorly advised internal promotions and recruitment from within.

 

The biggest key will be any new senior contracts need to be time limited.  No more than 5 years.

Maybe the best thing is to get rid of HR involvement in recruitment completely.  Those working in the area will have more idea of what is actually needed (a lot of government jobs are specialised) and HR are overly-impressed by bullshitters.  And the problems apply even more to private sector recruitment companies where much of the jargon and procedures come from. 

And most of the senior people are on short-term contracts already.  Magson's two years didn't seem to limit her much.

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Kopek said:

...but with the time needed to seek legal advise, this 10 days would probably preclude that? They have their pension, that is protected, that they don't get a severance package is a consequence of the speed of their departure?

It all indicates their being  'leant' on, which is how it should be with little chance of an unfair/constructional  dismissal claim?

Agree with your last comment, but it is more likely that they were presented with a "this is how it is" and possibly referred to lawyers already lined up? I really doubt this has been negotiated over a period of 10 or so days. 

If they don't accept, the alternative is a lengthy disciplinary process which could jeopardise (possibly) pension and more?

Don't forget, there is the evidence issue to be cleared as well.  That is not to say any of those who have suddenly found other opportunities are implicated. 

 

 

[Kopek]

That's the problem though Gladys, even past CMs have found employ in |\banks and such that they have no apparent quality to qualify for?

It could be that the two resignations today have realised the inevitable outcome and have jumped to9 preserve their ego?

[Roger Mexico]

2 minutes ago, Kopek said:

It could be that the two resignations today have realised the inevitable outcome and have jumped to9 preserve their ego?

But in that case they'd be working out their three months notice.  All these people are leaving with immediate effect.  And two resignations of those heavily implicated in the Ranson Decision in the same afternoon would be a bit of a coincidence, especially on a day that Ashford was also making a big thing about going.

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Kopek said:

That's the problem though Gladys, even past CMs have found employ in |\banks and such that they have no apparent quality to qualify for?

It could be that the two resignations today have realised the inevitable outcome and have jumped to9 preserve their ego?

It is all supposition and no point in arguing the toss.  I am not even sure what we are arguing about really, other than the likely reality of how these thing happened. 

[hissingsid]

He thought he was 🤣

[Capt_Mainwaring]

27 minutes ago, Kopek said:

even past CMs have found employ in |\banks

Which past CMs?

[Numbnuts]

1 minute ago, Capt_Mainwaring said:

Which past CMs?

In Skelly's Chinese banks maybe ? 

[Kopek]

40 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Maybe the best thing is to get rid of HR involvement in recruitment completely. 

Surely HR s requirement was to narrow down the list of applicants on perusal of the applicants CVs ? Would you prefer the CEO of a Dept were the only ones  to select this list of final applicants???