coldel Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Exactly, so they should be sorting themselves out and not covering up institutional bullying either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I have also had to investigate and act on an incident of physical violence (one employee upon another) at a social event where all the "guests" were also employees. That person was summarily dismissed due to the exact nature of the incident. This was in a FTSE 50 PLC. If it had been serious verbal abuse, however, I guess we would have come to some other decision - I guess some sort of written formal warning with a "second strike and your out" clause. Which back to the point, cumulative effect. If this was the first time he had done it in 20 years then I think it would be a written warning as its out of character etc. However being on a warning and publically told any misconduct would result in instant suspension then here we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sipar69 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Yeah I've done quite a few investigations and generally verbals is likely to mean warnings but any form of violence and it's out the door you go. But a succession of more minor warnings will also mean it's get your coat time. Edited March 13, 2015 by sipar69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilMH Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I guess this opens up the wider question of how much sh1t "ordinary" people should tolerate just because someone/something is "famous or powerful". It's really a point of principle versus those who point out how much money is at stake etc. There are parallels in private/public life and between nations that mirror this type of situation. I am not making a point about Clarkson specifically because I don't know what happened. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilogikal1 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Which back to the point, cumulative effect. If this was the first time he had done it in 20 years then I think it would be a written warning as its out of character etc. However being on a warning and publically told any misconduct would result in instant suspension then here we are. ... assuming the latest reports are actually what happened and not just further conjecture and here say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Which back to the point, cumulative effect. If this was the first time he had done it in 20 years then I think it would be a written warning as its out of character etc. However being on a warning and publically told any misconduct would result in instant suspension then here we are. ... assuming the latest reports are actually what happened and not just further conjecture and here say. Agreed, talking here just on the point - not that we have the full facts of this incident - but if the news this morning is true then I would say the BBC took the right decision, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 :lol: http://newsthump.com/2015/03/12/jeremy-clarksons-wife-hospitalised-with-rsi-after-signing-petition-650000-times/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilMH Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Just by way of total trivia I once owned a Caterham 7 that had previously been owned by the aforesaid Mrs Clarkson. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I for one would prefer to retain the best people in my team, not the loudest and brashest I for one would prefer to retain the person who made my company the most money 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Update on Clarkson. http://www.msn.com/e...Am?ocid=U305DHP http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jeremy-clarkson-the-stig-says-top-gear-would-be-damaged-goods-without-suspended-host-10103328.html Edited March 13, 2015 by WhackyWill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilMH Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I for one would prefer to retain the best people in my team, not the loudest and brashest I for one would prefer to retain the person who made my company the most money This is the argument in a nutshell. Are there more important issues in corporate life than the pursuit of profit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I for one would prefer to retain the best people in my team, not the loudest and brashest I for one would prefer to retain the person who made my company the most money How do you define that? Sales? What if they are not in a sales capacity? What if they are in a sales capacity but their behaviour was the source of high churn rates in the business? What if they are in a position of influence? Whatever the case, even if they can make lots of money, there would always be another person out there that can do the same (99% of cases) so I would not put up with a bullying character because ultimately whatever their credentials in 'making money' the company will be worse off for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) I for one would prefer to retain the best people in my team, not the loudest and brashest I for one would prefer to retain the person who made my company the most money This is the argument in a nutshell. Are there more important issues in corporate life than the pursuit of profit? Maybe the company I currently work for is an exception then - they take the longer term view that investment in peoples wellbeing is paramount and yes you might lose a few £ in the short term getting rid of bad eggs if they make good money but theres always someone else equally capable but doesnt disrupt the workforce. The company I work for makes a lot of money globally, maybe that gives them the opportunity to get rid of bad eggs and bullies but its not like they have only just started doing this its been the culture from the start. Longer term, leaving bullies and bad eggs in your business is bad business no matter how important or good at making money they think they are. Edited March 13, 2015 by coldel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) I for one would prefer to retain the best people in my team, not the loudest and brashest I for one would prefer to retain the person who made my company the most money This is the argument in a nutshell. Are there more important issues in corporate life than the pursuit of profit? I for one would prefer to retain the best people in my team, not the loudest and brashest I for one would prefer to retain the person who made my company the most money This is the argument in a nutshell. Are there more important issues in corporate life than the pursuit of profit? Maybe the company I currently work for is an exception then - they take the longer term view that investment in peoples wellbeing is paramount and yes you might lose a few £ in the short term getting rid of bad eggs if they make good money but theres always someone else equally capable but doesnt disrupt the workforce. The company I work for makes a lot of money globally, maybe that gives them the opportunity to get rid of bad eggs and bullies but its not like they have only just started doing this its been the culture from the start. Longer term, leaving bullies and bad eggs in your business is bad business no matter how important or good at making money they think they are. No one sets up a company (unless a charity) to just get by and invest in peoples wellbeing, its all about the £. Companies are there to make money. I employ people who can do the job they are there to do, if their job is too make my company money, i want the one who can make me the most and no, there wont be a replacement, loose TG as it is, like or not and you will end up with some guff like 5th gear which is demoted to discovery Edited March 13, 2015 by Jetpilot 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 As for guilty until proven innocent, I'd suggest the 200,000 plus people who have already decided that whatever he did wasn't sufficiently serious to warrant his suspension is the more striking issue. I never take these online petitions too seriously, I mean like over 10,000 people have signed a petition addressed to Death asking to bring Terry Pratchet back . https://www.change.org/p/death-bring-back-terry-pratchett Pete 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilMH Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I for one would prefer to retain the best people in my team, not the loudest and brashest I for one would prefer to retain the person who made my company the most money This is the argument in a nutshell. Are there more important issues in corporate life than the pursuit of profit? Maybe the company I currently work for is an exception then - they take the longer term view that investment in peoples wellbeing is paramount and yes you might lose a few £ in the short term getting rid of bad eggs if they make good money but theres always someone else equally capable but doesnt disrupt the workforce. The company I work for makes a lot of money globally, maybe that gives them the opportunity to get rid of bad eggs and bullies but its not like they have only just started doing this its been the culture from the start. Longer term, leaving bullies and bad eggs in your business is bad business no matter how important or good at making money they think they are. I agree with you. My question was simply a prompt to consider the morality and implications of profit at any cost. I know what sort of company I would want to work for and took a big decision many years ago to do so...even though that caused me some short term pain at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I guess we agree to disagree then. I wasnt really talking about JC in particular but the company I work for would not tolerate bullies no matter how much money they make. We got our revenue results in for FY 2014 yesterday and it had nine zeros on the end for a company founded 11 years ago. Yes it is about the £ but there are different ways to get there. Allow your company to 'tolerate' bad eggs and bullies is bad business - it restricts growth (as in that one person can only make so much money) and restricts your companies capability to recruit and retain the best people - this person wont be able to keep the business afloat on their own forever if you are losing the best potentials because you have a few twats in the business that you refuse to deal with because they make £ each year. In fact that is a very rocky and ultimately doomed business model when you look to the long long term. in terms of TG, yes it would lose viewers if JC went in all likelihood, but as many people on the top gear thread are talking about a re-boot and new presenters as those who like it as it is for instance. Very very rarely does a brand fail because an individual leaves - yes its bumpy in the short term but good management will always find the next rising star by ensuring they havent been pushed out the business already by some bully and gone off working for someone else. Longer term, chucking your business reliance on bullies, loudmouths, people that at this point in time make £ is not in my view good business. I would rather have steady growth in numbers and business, team harmony and good team morale over some individual maverick who antagonises the staff any day. Who would you rather work for? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Who would you rather work for? I pretty much disagree with everything you say but thats just a matter of opinion, neither of us is right or wrong! Who would rather work for, neither, hence why i work by myself and sub contract, so i dont have to put up with pc nonsense, imho of course 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 As somebody who worked both for the BBC and LWT for over 15 years between the two. I was a Head of Department for LWT. Its a completely different culture and drinking after a shoot is certainly the norm, unfortunately "spats" like this are very common its the pressure of the industry, you cannot compare it to a normal 9 to 5 job as above have done. We used to sort out the problems in house and everybody were again a "team" and onto the next shoot. Unfortunately due to 24h News, social media and FB Twitter etc and Mum & Dad with iPhone's this now is public knowledge before anybody in authority can sit the culprits down and mediate it to a handshake, Then give them the "schedule" for the next location and a b**cking, that's regardless of their status. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexx Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 As somebody who worked both for the BBC and LWT for over 15 years between the two. I was a Head of Department for LWT. Dude, you've had more careers than Jordan, Hulk Hogan, and Postman Pat combined. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 As somebody who worked both for the BBC and LWT for over 15 years between the two. I was a Head of Department for LWT. Dude, you've had more careers than Jordan, Hulk Hogan, and Postman Pat combined. Not really. I'm probably as old as all of them put together. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 not sure how legit the account is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilogikal1 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Unfortunately due to 24h News, social media and FB Twitter etc and Mum & Dad with iPhone's this now is public knowledge before anybody in authority can sit the culprits down and mediate it to a handshake, Except in this case it wasn't public knowledge until Clarkson was suspended by someone in authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMballistic Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 As somebody who worked both for the BBC and LWT for over 15 years between the two. I was a Head of Department for LWT. Dude, you've had more careers than Jordan, Hulk Hogan, and Postman Pat combined. Not really. I'm probably as old as all of them put together. No way you're 156+ years old, ....I call bs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilogikal1 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 As somebody who worked both for the BBC and LWT for over 15 years between the two. I was a Head of Department for LWT. Dude, you've had more careers than Jordan, Hulk Hogan, and Postman Pat combined. Not really. I'm probably as old as all of them put together. No way you're 156+ years old, ....I call bs. Pictures or it didn't ha... ah forget it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.