top WPC gets her breast out
Discussion
La Liga said:
mybrainhurts said:
So, belittling a subordinate in front of others is all right, then?
Who said that? I think there are many sectors where she would have retained her job.
Do you really think a CEO of a public company would have the confidence of shareholders if she behaved like this?
Protection of staff from abuse from those who interact with a company is widespread these days, haven't you noticed warning signs everywhere? With such sensitivity from without, how could it be justified and acceptable from within?
Contract of employment...We'll protect you from customers' verbal abuse and call the police but, if you dare have a boob job, we'll send round the CEO to sneer at you in front of your colleagues and slap you about with a floppy tit...
Yes, that would work nicely...
mybrainhurts said:
La Liga said:
mybrainhurts said:
So, belittling a subordinate in front of others is all right, then?
Who said that? I think there are many sectors where she would have retained her job.
Do you really think a CEO of a public company would have the confidence of shareholders if she behaved like this?
Protection of staff from abuse from those who interact with a company is widespread these days, haven't you noticed warning signs everywhere? With such sensitivity from without, how could it be justified and acceptable from within?
Contract of employment...We'll protect you from customers' verbal abuse and call the police but, if you dare have a boob job, we'll send round the CEO to sneer at you in front of your colleagues and slap you about with a floppy tit...
Yes, that would work nicely...
Regardless of whether she should keep her job or not, I disagree with La ligas defence of the fact it takes so long to investigate and come to a conclusion, whether they're investigating 20, 30 or 40 other cases simultaneously. I'm sure most of us do a s
t-load of work in our day jobs. How on earth can it take so many days for what is a blatantly straightforward incident. It really is crazy.
t-load of work in our day jobs. How on earth can it take so many days for what is a blatantly straightforward incident. It really is crazy.CoolHands said:
Regardless of whether she should keep her job or not, I disagree with La ligas defence of the fact it takes so long to investigate and come to a conclusion, whether they're investigating 20, 30 or 40 other cases simultaneously. I'm sure most of us do a st-load of work in our day jobs. How on earth can it take so many days for what is a blatantly straightforward incident. It really is crazy.
You would, no doubt, have criticised an investigation that wasn't thorough. t-load of work in our day jobs. How on earth can it take so many days for what is a blatantly straightforward incident. It really is crazy.I've known two investigation of fairly senior officers to go on for an extraordinary time because of time-wasting by the officers' briefs. I, like you, have no idea if it was the case in this enquiry but I bet it was.
Greendubber said:
XCP said:
I think she should have been sacked. I am not surprised that she wasn't though.
Same here.I can accept that they've got a lot invested in this woman and there'd be a financial penalty if they sacked her, but then there's always more queuing for such posts.
If there's something we haven't been told, then I could possibly see an excuse, but I feel certain it might have been hinted at.
mybrainhurts said:
Would it be an accurate assumption that this woman will be a huge source of amusement among the ranks, thus commanding no respect, thus being undeployable in any role more important than making the tea, so will be officed up in a cupboard for a few years, to count paper clips, in order to claim her pension?
I'm not sure you understand how the systems works. It is a disciplined job. If she gives an order that is not unlawful, an officer of a lower rank will have to obey, regardless of how they view the woman. It is at at the same time both a strength and weakness of the job. Derek Smith said:
mybrainhurts said:
Would it be an accurate assumption that this woman will be a huge source of amusement among the ranks, thus commanding no respect, thus being undeployable in any role more important than making the tea, so will be officed up in a cupboard for a few years, to count paper clips, in order to claim her pension?
I'm not sure you understand how the systems works. It is a disciplined job. If she gives an order that is not unlawful, an officer of a lower rank will have to obey, regardless of how they view the woman. It is at at the same time both a strength and weakness of the job. Is that a risk to be taken by her superiors?
mybrainhurts said:
You're insulated from the real world. Do you really think a CEO of a public company would have the confidence of shareholders if she behaved like this?
Third down from the top isn't equivalent to a CEO. A board director would be a better comparison. I think the shareholders are primarily concerned with performance. If they're seeing a good ROE and regular dividends, I don't think they'll care too much.
If someone has done 99.9% good, I'm not sure I support getting rid of them for the 0.1% (depending on what the 0.1 is, naturally. If it was stabbing someone in the face then the 99.9% wouldn't matter too much).
Rovinghawk said:
Do you personally think that her behaviour was acceptable
La Liga said:
Really poor behaviour and fortunate to keep her job.
Rovinghawk said:
& that she should keep her job?
I'm satisfied to defer to the panel's judgement. La Liga said:
mybrainhurts said:
You're insulated from the real world. Do you really think a CEO of a public company would have the confidence of shareholders if she behaved like this?
Third down from the top isn't equivalent to a CEO. A board director would be a better comparison. I think the shareholders are primarily concerned with performance. If they're seeing a good ROE and regular dividends, I don't think they'll care too much.
Institutional investors are getting a bit vocal these days and they can be majority shareholders.
Have they? Executive pay is brought up every so often as well as the analysis that CEOs do little for company performance.
Again, I'd suggest performance is more important to shareholders. If that starts suffering then people are going to get scrutinised regardless of whether they've misbehaved on an occasion or not.
Again, I'd suggest performance is more important to shareholders. If that starts suffering then people are going to get scrutinised regardless of whether they've misbehaved on an occasion or not.
mybrainhurts said:
You're insulated from the real world. I've seen people seen off for stuff that's very minor compared to this woman's conduct.
Correction: you are insulated from the 'real' world. You have no real idea what happens day in and day out in your city/town/county. Like me, be thankful that there are those out there stopping you knowing just how bad things really are.mybrainhurts said:
Yes, I understand that, but what happens if lower ranks disregard orders en masse by way of contempt for a superior?
Is that a risk to be taken by her superiors?
I meant to say it was a disciplined service. In other words they are told that they must obey any order that is not unlawful. This goes beyond just obeying a lawful order. Is that a risk to be taken by her superiors?
An underling can point out that a senior officer's order was a poor option, and many have done so, but if the ranker decides to go ahead, then the officer has to obey, always supposing that the order was not unlawful.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff