• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

The price of loyalty

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-41851771

this is a long story about a woman who appeared to be highly regarded getting sacked from her job. You wonder what the hell is going on until you reach the end and come across this little snippet:

Meanwhile the job she loved has gone forever. Park Hall closed its doors on 30 June as part of Surrey County Council's plans to shut down all six care homes it owned and ran. The residents were rehomed.

 

then it all becomes clear. The council went on this line of attack to save themselves paying out redundancy. It is much more common than people think 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, One percent said:

I'm reading that as an excuse. If she hadn't have pasted the photo there, they would have found something else. 


Hmm, I reckon the FB post had upset someone. Vulnerable adults photos on FB is a no no. 
She'd been there long enough to know that.

Whether sacking her was the right response though is another matter.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really shabby and entirely down to saving redundancy.  I'd have said she was doing a great job.

Though I have seen worse; one guy brought in to make life hell for one team so that over half of them resigned; then, target met, they made most of the rest redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, One percent said:

Not according to the article. There was one resident, a male with downs. His family have come out and stood by the person sacked. They say how much of a difference she made to his life and couldn't see the problem with the photo being shared. 

If the law says you can't murder people, but you murder someone but the relatives of the person you murder say it's ok, does that matter?

I'm afraid I got bored reading the article - she carried on singing and performing despite being on the sick with stress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

If the law says you can't murder people, but you murder someone but the relatives of the person you murder say it's ok, does that matter?

I'm afraid I got bored reading the article - she carried on singing and performing despite being on the sick with stress?

Is it against the law to post a picture on Facebook?  I'll advised maybe but against the law?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

If the law says you can't murder people, but you murder someone but the relatives of the person you murder say it's ok, does that matter?

I'm afraid I got bored reading the article - she carried on singing and performing despite being on the sick with stress?

Murder is something people would generally agree to be a sacking offence; an accidental photo - not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

Is it against the law to post a picture on Facebook?  I'll advised maybe but against the law?  

The protection of vulnerable adults will be covered in some detail somewhere in the care home procedures manual.

I'm sort of playing devil here - I think it's a shit excuse for getting the sack but FB is an awful place to post anything if you work with young people or vulnerable adults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

The protection of vulnerable adults will be covered in some detail somewhere in the care home procedures manual.

I'm sort of playing devil here - I think it's a shit excuse for getting the sack but FB is an awful place to post anything if you work with young people or vulnerable adults. 

Agree with you Sarah. I avoid it mainly due to my work.  

Im of the view though that she gave her employers the ammunition they were looking for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

The protection of vulnerable adults will be covered in some detail somewhere in the care home procedures manual.

I'm sort of playing devil here - I think it's a shit excuse for getting the sack but FB is an awful place to post anything if you work with young people or vulnerable adults. 

Partner works at school.

Anybody stupid enough to post a piccie taken on the school premises will be sacked on the spot. I think about 3 or 4 TAs have been sacked over the last few years. Each year they are all marched in, given the same talk, told what happens. Each year one will take a photo.

The safeguarding rules are there for a reason. On 45K she should be well aware of them. Its a total No No. The BS about only resident, friends etc just do not apply. You cannot start choosing when to apply the rule.

This bit stand out:

' Rachel lost her appeal and was given just two days to decide whether she would accept demotion - with a significant pay cut - or face dismissal. She asked for extra time to consider her options, but the council refused. Instead, Rachel, who by now had been signed off with stress and anxiety, received a telephone call demanding that she come to a decision immediately. '

' Not only is Gary unable to work, but without a reference Rachel can't find a new job. She and Gary are racking up huge debts living off their credit cards, but she hopes her money worries will be sorted out once the case is resolved, with any luck out of court. '

' "All I did was put up a picture of a client enjoying their life in the care home that I loved working in," she says, beginning to cry. '

Nope. Earlier:

' Rachel had done four things wrong. She'd posted the photo on Facebook, she'd identified a Park Hall resident in the photo - a man with Down's syndrome who, eager to be photographed, had jumped into the shot beside her - she had also posted a video of the music night, and she was Facebook friends with a relative of one of the residents. '

 

'It's the beginning of August 2017, nearly 20 months since Rachel was first suspended from her job, and she has some exciting news.

"I won! Oh, my God, I won!"'

Earlier:

' She and Gary now have debts to the tune of about £50,000 and are 14 months in arrears with their rent, and although Rachel now has a reference from Surrey County Council, it states that she was fired for serious misconduct, so the prospect of her finding work is still uncertain. '

And this is the killer:

' Despite the win, going back to work will be a struggle. Before losing her job two years ago, Rachel had been signed off with stress, and she still suffers from anxiety and depression. '

So, how much time was she signed off sick before his happened?

You have someone who's pulling in 45K as manager, does not seem to grasp vulnerable people protection, seems a bit of a loon - the hearing was delayed as she kicked off in the first one. Despite not having a job, manages to spend 50K in 18 months expecting some sort of lottery payout.

My spidey sense tingle on this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Partner works at school.

Anybody stupid enough to post a piccie taken on the school premises will be sacked on the spot. I think about 3 or 4 TAs have been sacked over the last few years. Each year they are all marched in, given the same talk, told what happens. Each year one will take a photo.

The safeguarding rules are there for a reason. On 45K she should be well aware of them. Its a total No No. The BS about only resident, friends etc just do not apply. You cannot start choosing when to apply the rule.

This bit stand out:

' Rachel lost her appeal and was given just two days to decide whether she would accept demotion - with a significant pay cut - or face dismissal. She asked for extra time to consider her options, but the council refused. Instead, Rachel, who by now had been signed off with stress and anxiety, received a telephone call demanding that she come to a decision immediately. '

' Not only is Gary unable to work, but without a reference Rachel can't find a new job. She and Gary are racking up huge debts living off their credit cards, but she hopes her money worries will be sorted out once the case is resolved, with any luck out of court. '

' "All I did was put up a picture of a client enjoying their life in the care home that I loved working in," she says, beginning to cry. '

Nope. Earlier:

' Rachel had done four things wrong. She'd posted the photo on Facebook, she'd identified a Park Hall resident in the photo - a man with Down's syndrome who, eager to be photographed, had jumped into the shot beside her - she had also posted a video of the music night, and she was Facebook friends with a relative of one of the residents. '

 

'It's the beginning of August 2017, nearly 20 months since Rachel was first suspended from her job, and she has some exciting news.

"I won! Oh, my God, I won!"'

Earlier:

' She and Gary now have debts to the tune of about £50,000 and are 14 months in arrears with their rent, and although Rachel now has a reference from Surrey County Council, it states that she was fired for serious misconduct, so the prospect of her finding work is still uncertain. '

And this is the killer:

' Despite the win, going back to work will be a struggle. Before losing her job two years ago, Rachel had been signed off with stress, and she still suffers from anxiety and depression. '

So, how much time was she signed off sick before his happened?

You have someone who's pulling in 45K as manager, does not seem to grasp vulnerable people protection, seems a bit of a loon - the hearing was delayed as she kicked off in the first one. Despite not having a job, manages to spend 50K in 18 months expecting some sort of lottery payout.

My spidey sense tingle on this.

 

 

You heartless bastard you. :CryBaby:xD

when you pull the bits out like that, yes it does seem odd. I missed that she had been signed off prior to being sacked  - my reading of it was she was sacked then got signed off. 

The reason why I'm inclined to be on her side is that something similar happened to me years ago.  The organisation wanted to outsource our department. Rather than explaining it and giving us options, they decided to bully us out. 

I was preggars so jumped ship. However, two work colleagues stuck it out. The bullying by all accounts was horrendous. One ended up with a nervous breakdown, the other cancer. Neither have worked since. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, One percent said:

You heartless bastard you. :CryBaby:xD

when you pull the bits out like that, yes it does seem odd. I missed that she had been signed off prior to being sacked  - my reading of it was she was sacked then got signed off. 

The reason why I'm inclined to be on her side is that something similar happened to me years ago.  The organisation wanted to outsource our department. Rather than explaining it and giving us options, they decided to bully us out. 

I was preggars so jumped ship. However, two work colleagues stuck it out. The bullying by all accounts was horrendous. One ended up with a nervous breakdown, the other cancer. Neither have worked since. 

Oh I dont doubt the council were useless - they fucked up the sacking process.

I mean, the LA will have spent many man hours working on its processes - a vast make-work scheme, as all LAs the same, so can common up 95% of their procedures. Then this happens, and they ignore their own fucking rules.

The number of times this happens in schools, NHS and the like is fucking unbeleivable. You are paying people 100k to come up with the se duplicated procedures and rules which they fucking ignore when they need to use them.

These sort of article are always one sided. At this stage, noone a tthe LA wold be willing or able or interested in going on the record and saying 'Oh she was a fucking nightmare. When she could be arsed to turn up, she was posting piccies on facebook...'

You just have this womans spin on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spygirl said:

Oh I dont doubt the council were useless - they fucked up the sacking process.

I mean, the LA will have spent many man hours working on its processes - a vast make-work scheme, as all LAs the same, so can common up 95% of their procedures. Then this happens, and they ignore their own fucking rules.

The number of times this happens in schools, NHS and the like is fucking unbeleivable. You are paying people 100k to come up with the se duplicated procedures and rules which they fucking ignore when they need to use them.

These sort of article are always one sided. At this stage, noone a tthe LA wold be willing or able or interested in going on the record and saying 'Oh she was a fucking nightmare. When she could be arsed to turn up, she was posting piccies on facebook...'

You just have this womans spin on it.

Yep. I used to be a trade union rep at work. We got every member off every time as hr appeared to,be incapable of following their own procedures. The procedures they had themselves written. They resorted to paying off people. It was easier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Oh I dont doubt the council were useless - they fucked up the sacking process.

I mean, the LA will have spent many man hours working on its processes - a vast make-work scheme, as all LAs the same, so can common up 95% of their procedures. Then this happens, and they ignore their own fucking rules.

The number of times this happens in schools, NHS and the like is fucking unbeleivable. You are paying people 100k to come up with the se duplicated procedures and rules which they fucking ignore when they need to use them.

These sort of article are always one sided. At this stage, noone a tthe LA wold be willing or able or interested in going on the record and saying 'Oh she was a fucking nightmare. When she could be arsed to turn up, she was posting piccies on facebook...'

You just have this womans spin on it.

Granted that one. It's designed to tug on the heart strings, not give an impartial stance at the moralty of any side. That's the nature of leftism tabloids I suppose, they're oh so altruistic and anyone who questions that is a nazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Partner works at school.

Anybody stupid enough to post a piccie taken on the school premises will be sacked on the spot. I think about 3 or 4 TAs have been sacked over the last few years. Each year they are all marched in, given the same talk, told what happens. Each year one will take a photo.

The safeguarding rules are there for a reason. On 45K she should be well aware of them. Its a total No No. The BS about only resident, friends etc just do not apply. You cannot start choosing when to apply the rule.

 

I agree entirely with your post and the bits you underlined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Thombleached said:

I'm with 1p here. Sounds like a stitchup job. The fact she was signed off with stress could just as well be related to the fact that she was working for a bunch of cunnyholes.

That said, it is the So-Called BBC telling the story. :wanker:

She's done the rounds with it:

Aug 2016

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1592130/care-home-manager-sacked-for-posting-pics-of-happy-residents-on-facebook-in-breach-of-councils-social-media-policy/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734485/Award-winning-care-home-manager-50-forced-21-years-job-posting-three-pictures-residents-Halloween-party-Facebook.html

I think she was expecting a lottery like payout.

Keeps spinning the line about hubby having a brain tumour.

And she wasnt a care home manager for 21 years. She states that she started working as an assistant and worked her way up.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spygirl said:

She's done the rounds with it:

Aug 2016

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1592130/care-home-manager-sacked-for-posting-pics-of-happy-residents-on-facebook-in-breach-of-councils-social-media-policy/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734485/Award-winning-care-home-manager-50-forced-21-years-job-posting-three-pictures-residents-Halloween-party-Facebook.html

I think she was expecting a lottery like payout.

Keeps spinning the line about hubby having a brain tumour.

And she wasnt a care home manager for 21 years. She states that she started working as an assistant and worked her way up.

 

 

Spy you're like my guardian demon. Whenever I think my trusting nature could be skewing my viewpoint, I ask myself "What would spy say?" :P

I think @MrPin is my guardian angel showing me how people can be gentlemanly O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Thombleached said:

Spy you're like my guardian demon. Whenever I think my trusting nature could be skewing my viewpoint, I ask myself "What would spy say?" :P

I think @MrPin is my guardian angel showing me how people can be gentlemanly O.o

If only I were that angelic, and close to God.O.o I hope I am a gentleman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sarahbell said:

The protection of vulnerable adults will be covered in some detail somewhere in the care home procedures manual.

I'm sort of playing devil here - I think it's a shit excuse for getting the sack but FB is an awful place to post anything if you work with young people or vulnerable adults. 

I'm amazed that grown adults will still mix work and Facebook. For any reason.

I knew a guy who was a fireman and a moron. One day at an RTA he thought it would be a good idea to take some piccies, you know, as you do. He consolidated his grand idiocy by uploading some of them to facebook.

The sheer volume of shit that was dropped upon this guys head from a dizzying height is impossible to decently articulate. His life became a pinball machine of stand-up meetings with no coffee or biscuits, he was bollocked from pillar to post in an upward fashion before eventually being biblically torn a new one by the chief himself.

Needless to say what remained of him was unceremoniously booted from the service and, as far as I can gather, he's still a complete moron, albeit no longer in a position of any responsibility.

Facebook. Just say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, One percent said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-41851771

this is a long story about a woman who appeared to be highly regarded getting sacked from her job. You wonder what the hell is going on until you reach the end and come across this little snippet:

Meanwhile the job she loved has gone forever. Park Hall closed its doors on 30 June as part of Surrey County Council's plans to shut down all six care homes it owned and ran. The residents were rehomed.

 

then it all becomes clear. The council went on this line of attack to save themselves paying out redundancy. It is much more common than people think 

They are all at it a member of my family had exactly the same happen to them ,it went from commendations year after year to evil personified to get rid of them without paying them off when the service was scrapped 

This was in the same field of work as the above story ,the local council is littered with similar cases ,but they are about to come unstuck big time 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thombleached said:

Spy you're like my guardian demon. Whenever I think my trusting nature could be skewing my viewpoint, I ask myself "What would spy say?" :P

I think @MrPin is my guardian angel showing me how people can be gentlemanly O.o

Nah.

Employment tribunals are a good thing. They are to balance out the single employee v. Large org. Otherwise its a single person against hr, legal dept, large budget. Balances it out.

In this case you have someone whos been a manager who seems to have turned it into a kariokee session - this may or may not be a good thing.

Shes also had time off for stress and anxiety. Now im not a total bastard and accept people have temporary mental illnesses .... but ... In my experience of public sector middle aged women - and im do mean just women - the time off for stress can be fucking insane. Ive known some who barely turn up 50% of their contracted time.

Again, youre only going to hear the true picture from someone who worked with this women but eerything about this tale, inc. the press release smells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By One percent
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43739963
      Fast food giants, coffee shops and retailers are relabelling low-skilled jobs as apprenticeships, a report says.
      The study by think tank Reform says many firms have rebranded existing roles after being obliged to contribute cash to on-the-job training.
      The study says 40% of the apprenticeship standards approved do not meet traditional definition of such skilled on-the-job training courses.
      The government says "quality" is at the heart of its apprenticeship reforms.
      As part of the changes, it introduced an apprenticeship levy on organisations paying more than £3m in salaries a year. 
      They have to pay 0.5% of their wages total into a "digital account" held by HMRC.
      They then "spend" these contributions on apprenticeship training delivered by registered providers. They can also get back up to 90% of the cost of training.
       
      The report says: "As part of the government's wider package of reforms to apprenticeships, groups of employers came together to write the new 'apprenticeship standards'. 
      "Some used this opportunity to generate high-quality standards, but others appear to be simply rebadging low-quality, low-skill and often low-wage roles as 'apprenticeships' instead."
      In 2013, the government said apprenticeships had to be skilled roles, requiring substantial and sustained training of at least 12 months, leading to full competency and should provide the apprentice with transferrable skills in an occupation.
      But a quick glance at the government's official apprenticeships website shows many high street firms advertising for apprentices in what appear to be unskilled roles.
      For example, KFC is advertising for an apprentice hospitality team member.
      The advert describes the apprenticeship as "a structured, learner and employer-focused development programme designed to create opportunities for lifelong knowledge, skills and behaviours".
      But the role is described as cooking "fries" and other products and serving customers front of house, or cooking and assembling KFC products, while maintaining clean, sanitary working conditions. 
      It says training is based around day-to-day duties, but will also involve one-to-one interactions with a specialised trainer every four to six weeks.
       
      and the government does nothing to stop these exploitative practices  
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.