Latest posts:
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
I have decided - I am distincly old fashioned when it comes to a) breast feeding an infant in a civic car on civic business (or anywhere in public for that matter) and b) taking an infant along on civic business in the first place. I am just not sure what women like Dr Lane are trying to prove by carting their offspring along to their workplace and insisting that they can breastfeed them when they feel that it is necessary - irrespective of where they are and who is present. I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with "equality" but has everything to do with "I am going to do as I jolly well please and if you don't like it I shall sue". In many respects this is arrogance of the worst kind as it takes no account of other peoples'sensitivities.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
A lead from the top of the organisation, good, fair interviewing and recruitment techniques and good middle management and supervision of the whole workforce and there is no need for "equality and diversity" practitioners. Equality issues are taken care of automatically and everyone is treated fairly and with equal respect. Good HR managers who understand employment law and are allowed to implement it and make policies around it aid the process.
Where "equality and diversity" roles do exist their intent should not be to build up their professional association and look to make long term careers but simply to change the culture within the workplace and to work themselves out of their jobs. When they succeed in getting equality throughout the workplace then they have succeeded - job done, time to leave.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Compensation of £500,000 after only completing 6 months work (May to October 2004). Actually, less that 6 months as she was off sick for quite a proportion of this time.
£500,000 from a Hospice that almost certainly relies entirely on donations as such institutions are generally outside of the NHS. Every penny is critical to hospices and to sue for half a milliion pounds is selfishness of the highest order. Who needs the money most -the terminally ill in this hospice or the ex-Director? How will the hospice replace a sum of this magnitude?
Sadly (some would say thankfully!) I am not in charge of the tribunal as I would tell her to learn to manage the pain, to stop being a money grubbing "backpainski" and to find a job where she can not adversely affect those most in need of care and attention in the last weeks of their lives.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Oh dear, where are we headed?
The job description presumably said that the research was into improving mental health in the groups named. i.e. Afro Caribbeans and South Asians.
If the candidate (Dr Walls) tried to extend the scope of the role to include Irish (and Chinese) then she was out of order - it is not for applicants to tell employers what the job content should be. It appears that the interview panel believed that Dr Walls would probably not be as committed as she might be if other ethnic groups were not included.
They therefore chose another candidate who would do the job that was advertised.
Nowhere does it say that employers have to choose the most qualified person with the most experience. Employers choose people using a variety of criteria - those who know what they are doing, will fit into the organisation, will get on with colleagues and superiors, have the capacity to learn etc. They do not normally choose the candidate who has their own agenda (as in Dr Walls case)as this may be a recipe for disaster.
That this case should be judged as race discrimination is laughable if it were not so serious.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Just when you think you have seen or read it all another case comes up that defies belief.
To sack people for reporting and giving evidence of (alleged) abuse of children that involved sex and drugs is a staggering move to be taken by any Council. I accept that those sacked should probably not have gone to the press with their story but what are people supposed to do when they report something as serious as this and seemingly no action takes place? The police are notoriously slow to move so the press is the only alternative in order to get the story out into the open to get a reaction.
The council's statement is a mealy-mouthed apology. It should have read:
"The management who ignored this report of serious child abuse and chose instead to penalise those reporting it have all been sacked and their pensions withdrawn. They are Mr........., Miss....., Mrs......... and Mr.........
The Council will not tolerate their officers ignoring serious allegations such as these and have taken these steps to demonstrate that it must not, and will not, happen again. We have deliberately named names in order to shame those directly concerned.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Claire
I don't know about playing devil's advocate; it sounds rather as though you support the "two wrongs make a right" school of thought......and even with justification this is not something that anyone should accept, even for the sake of mediation.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
.....and the irrefutable evidence that climate change and global warming (this time around) is caused entirely by man made carbon dioxide is..............?
No, I am not an ostrich with my head in the sand ignoring what is going on around me but there are sufficient contrary views, and evidence, from leading academics to make one wonder if "global warming" isn't just a convenience for too many governments and people. If it is talked about enough and given the spotlight enough then it becomes "fact". I am uneasy that cause and effect are being linked without proper proof and this is bad science.
A core plug from the Arctic gives an untampered history of the world and from this can be seen numerous periods of "global warming" when there was no carbon dioxide or pollutants made by man - in fact during the earlier periods there was no man! The history shows a cyclical pattern of the earth heating up and cooling down irrespective of what man has done. Doubtless all the carbon dioxide being produced raises questions but is it really the root cause of the current erratic weather.......Discuss?
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
An acquaintance of mine went to Hendon police college to train as a policeman and during one of the classroom sessions he pointed out that, within the force, there were special groups for black and Asian offficers and for gay and lesbian officers but there was no special group for white heterosexual officers. He was asked to leave the college the folowing day as he was "not suitable police officer material". He was pretty devastated as he had made the comments pretty much tongue in cheek and was not expecting such a reaction.
Make of this what you will!
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the bishop given the difficulties the church has had in recent times with revelations about church workers (priests and vicars included) having an adverse effect on young people, either in terms of moral guidance or inappropriate relationships. No sooner does the church seem to be recovering from one revelation then another one comes to the fore.
In the bishop's shoes would we all not be ultra cautious when hiring a youth worker and want to know as much as possible about them? Intrusive questions may be upsetting but it is the bishop who has to convince himself that the person he is hiring is fit to work with the youngsters in his diocese and I suspect he would be very conscious that the wrong choice could potentially have consequences later. No, I am not suggesting for one minute that being gay equates to leading youngsters astray but I do believe the bishop had every justification for making his own considered decision. For the chief executive of Stonewall to make a statement like "The Church of England cannot discriminate against gay people with impunity" is way over the top and doesn't reflect the situation at all.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Congratulations to Linda Tweedie; she has been well and truly "dumped on" but after a few months of being totally disheartened she has risen above it and is now doing extremely well (by the sound of it)in her new post. Good for her.
I trust, without making a big deal of it, that she has let all her friends, acquaintances, family, and even complete strangers know the name of her former employers so that they can stay well clear of this truly appalling outfit.
It is too late now but she really should have consulted a lawyer despite the possible consequences of word getting around about her being a "troublemaker" or similar. Still, if the previous employer is as bad as it seems it won't be long before they end up being told the facts of life by a tribunal, with it costing them a considerable sum for the privilege.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
It is a big step from "so far as is reasonably practicable" to "ensure the health & safety of workers in every aspect related to work".
It is noteworthy that the European Court of Justice in the end (after years) rejected the European Commission's claim that "reasonably practicable" was essentially a "get-out" clause for employers.
The court clearly have a better understanding of pragmatism and common sense when it comes to assessing risk and taking steps to secure the safety of workers than the Commission has. The very expression "ensure the Health & Safety of workers in EVERY ASPECT related to work" is actually impractical. Taken to its logical conclusion this could mean that workers would have to wear suits of armour, have self contained breathing apparatus as standard, never have to lift or carry any weight over one gram, never have to work at a height greater than 1 cm, have every conceivable type of eye, ear and hand protection (apart from the armour) and drive around in tanks on company business to ensure they don't get hurt in any collision.
Yes, all rather foolish but it does irritate when we know that many members of the EU have pretty poor records on worker safety and the UK essentially leads in the field. The Commission would make better use of its time looking into the Health & Safety regimes of Greece, France (where a shrug of the shoulders seems to answer any safety query) and others.
Well done the Court of Justice for knocking back this claim.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
I accept that in many respects I could be considered a dinosaur (and, by way of balance, a free-thinking modern radical in other respects!) but I have trouble getting from "Equality Bill consultation" to "allowing breast-feeding in public places".
Where does "equality" enter into the equation? It is not as though men have been allowed to breast-feed in public for years and only now women are to be allowed to do the same.
The article goes on to describe duties under the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations, the Employment Rights Act and the Sex Discrimination Act for the care of pregnant women and nursing mothers so there are plenty of measures in place to ensure their health, safety and welfare in the workplace. Providing a suitable room for their needs is surely only a logical extension of existing legislation and hardly needs an "Equality Bill" (presumably the Bill will become law at some stage) to further this cause. It is nothing to do with "equality" but everything to do with taking proper care of employees so why muddy the waters?
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
I think many people believe they are "users" of display screen equipment simply because they use a PC (or similar) and therefore automatically qualify for the eye test and contribution towards glasses "for DSE use."
It is worth challenging people as to why they believe they are a "user" as the definition is quite tight. They must be employees who "habitually" use display screen equipment as a "significant part" of their normal work.
The definition is further expanded:
- work OFTEN requires the use of a display screen for a period of an hour or longer i.e. most of the day
- the display screen is used on most days or every day
- the worker has little or no discretion on when and whether to use the display screen
- the job could not be done without the use of display screen equipment
- the ability to use display screen equipment forms an important part of the worker's job description or the recruitment specification.
If these criteria are fairly applied then many presumed "users" will not qualify for eye tests and glasses because, for example, they spend a lot of time on the 'phone, or in meetings, or travelling from one place to another, or interviewing people, or filing or working machines with no display etc. and so do not actually spend the majority of their time on a PC - it just seems like they do.
My company used to give an eye test voucher to anyone who asked but we are now considerably more enquiring about why people think they qualify and, as a result, spend considerably less!
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
There will be many Facilities Managers who have followed this case and thought "there but for the grace of God go I". How often have we been given additional roles without necessarily understanding the full ramifications of what may happen or without receiving any, or adequate, training to be able to properly undertake the job?
There is a presumption that because we are Facilities Managers we automatically know everything about legionella, asbestos, fleet management disability discrimination, fire safety, business continuity etc. etc. and can set up a watertight contract at the drop of a hat that will protect our employers as well as ourselves.
Mr Borthwick suddenly being told he was the "health & safety person" is probably not that unusual and from the comments he made he clearly didn't understand quite what this meant!
Whilst the council has not exactly covered itself in glory neither has the contractor - Interserve. They are presumably the "experts" in this case so why they did not help and guide Gillian Beckingham in creation of a comprehensive specification and a subsequent contract is a mystery.
If anyone asks us to become "responsible persons" or to take on additional works it may pay us all to stop and think for a moment just what is involved. Maybe in this way we can also bring the status of the Facilities Manager up the professional ranks because we are in the front line when it comes to answering the hard questions.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
It cannot be only migrant workers who struggle with official documents in order to fully understand them. How often are we faced with an agreement or a contract that is written in "legalese" and is all but incomprehensible to anyone other than a trained lawyer?
The Campaign for Plain English has had some success in getting companies to write documents in English that are easy to understand but it is limited. It is now 2007 and there can be no justification for using expressions such as "the party of the first party" and "the party of the second party" except to perpetuate the use of archaic English - for the benefit of whom?
Maybe all Workplace Law subscribers and readers should start their own movement towards plain English? We could all agree to return documents (contracts, agreements etc.)that are written in "legalese" to the originators together with a short, polite, note explaining that we are unable to agree to the document as it is difficult to understand. Further, we are not prepared to sign it until it is written in plain English and we do not believe that we should employ a lawyer to vet a fairly simple agreement for, say, a CCTV installation.
If enough of us agreed to take this appproach then maybe, just maybe, we could change the way companies write their documents and treat their customers.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Firstly, I would challenge Mr Pickard's statement that there is a culture of adversarial contract-based relationships" within Facilities Management. There certainly are a number of these but I think they are the exception rather than the norm and all the Facilities Managers of my acquaintance deal very professionally with suppliers and contractors. Yes, they want the best deal they can get but they are not bullies or adversarial and get the best deals they can manage by reasonable negotiation and not by more forceful means.
Secondly, partnerships are fine in theory but are actually cloud cuckoo land. No matter how fine the words used, or all the good intentions that are spoken of, the relationship always boils down to "Master/Slave" when push comes to shove. Everything can be rosy for months or even years and then when something goes seriously awry you will always (I shall say that again - ALWAYS) hear comments such as - "You're only contractors, you do as I say", or "I am fed up with you people, you don't even work for us", or "Don't you tell me what to do, you are only a contractor".
As soon as that veneer of "partnership" is scratched the most appalling statements are made which are designed to put one of the parties firmly in their place. i.e slave
No, partnerships are not the answer because I don't believe they can ever really exist - no matter what outsourcing companies and others may say. Good professional co-operation with both sides recognising that there is expertise within the other party would seem to me to be the right way to do business.
Mr Pickard's final principle is very telling - "Agreeing an exit strategy".
Maybe he should have said
"A partnership isn't only for Christmas but is fine until you decide to go your separate ways".
See, told you they never work!
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Nothing specifically to do with this rather shoddy affair but where does it say that people who are unsuccessful at getting a position have the right to challenge the selection process and the successful candidates' bona fides?
We have such a diverse society now that anyone could make a claim of discrimination of one kind or another if they are unsuccessful at getting a particular job.
What prompts people who do not get the job to find out about the successful candidate and then make a case that they are more qualified or experienced and should have been selected, and would have been, but for the fact that they are Irish, black, Jewish, too tall, too young or whatever.
Who releases the information on the successful candidate and what about data protection? Are the details of all candidates for a job not subject to data protection; I don't believe they should be made available however aggrieved the unsuccessful candidate(s) might feel.
This is a worrying development.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
I don't know whether it was the Channel 4 programme on "exploding the myth" of global warming that has made Jeffrey Thomas doubt that it is solely man's production of carbon dioxide that is responsible for this phenomenon, or his own innate sense of sniffing out a possibly dubious bandwagon upon which many people want to jump. Either way the science has not been demonstrably proven and there are many other factors (sun flares, destruction of rain forests and long term cyclical changes for example) that may be contributing to global warming.
The fact remains that something is happening to alter weather patterns and carbon dioxide may well be a contributory factor, so it is sensible to reduce it if at all possible. This is the hard bit as no matter what the UK does it will be offset by the newly emerging industrial giants of China and India. It is a world problem and needs world attention but....we have to start somewhere so why don't we set the example.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Amongst other properties I have responsibility for a large city centre office block and we find syringes and other drug users' impedimenta on a daily basis in our gardens. As we are the freeholders of the property we feel it is our responsibility to ensure that no-one comes to any harm whilst on our premises so first thing (6am) every day we collect whatever has been left and store in a "medical waste" sharps bin. We undertook a full risk assessment before undertaking this work and as a result we ensure that our staff who collect these items wear safety shoes and armoured gloves and know what to do in the event of accidental puncture.
In your case, Matt, it is not clear who owns the land even though one of your Facilities Managers has responsibility.
In your position I would liaise with the landowners (property owners) and make them aware of the potential problem. If anyone were to hurt themselves or become infected from a needle I believe (legal eagles to the rescue please if I am wrong!)that the property owners would be liable. They may well try to offload responsibility to the Facilities Manager but if the site is unmanned, open to everyone, and not fenced off then their case will be considerably weakened.
Fencing off, warning signs, and regular checks would be the longer term aim I think. Consider the repercussions if nothing is done and something happens - this is the message to get across to the owners. Good luck.
Rate this!
Nigel Seaward
Member - 112 posts
Is this report not just a feeble conspiracy theory?
Picture the boardroom scenario where the CEO says "Right gentlemen, times are hard and we are facing a tough time ahead. Let's appoint a sacrificial woman to the Finance Director's position so that she can make a hash of it and get us guys off the hook" All those in favour - OK unanimous".
So the Board choose to ignore their need for profit, ignore their duties to their shareholders, and ignore their responsibilities to their existing staff, suppliers, contractors and sub-contractors just so that they can "stich up" a woman. Clearly the authors of the report have never sat in on a Board Meeting!
Women are being given the opportunities, which is right and proper, but they have every right to expect to fail just as much as their male counterparts. Many males fail when put into top jobs so why should females be any different? No-one ever said it was easy.
The female cause is served poorly by highlighting in one breath their elevation to more top jobs but in the next breath complaining that they were "doomed to failure" from the start. Good grief, if the appointment looked like a "set up" or a bit "dodgy" they had every right to refuse to take the job in the first place. Why not sit back and watch yet another male fail and be pleased that they didn't fall into the trap!
0 (0)
