Sharon Spewsmith cant get a job

RiverStar

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

I don't see this working in any business today. The further up the chain you go, the more removed you are from day-to-day operations and man management. The role becomes more about business strategy - how to make the business more profitable and how to deliver shareholder value.

If those at the top really are responsible for what everyone below them does, then the CEO/COO should be sacked whenever an employee is sacked

Oh and all the managers above Sharon Shoesmith should be sacked, right up to the PM!!!

My thoughts exactly!!! You've kinda summed up there what I have been trying to say. Thanks!

Money_Grabber13579

RiverStar wrote: »

I understand what you are saying and it does make sense, she DOES have responsibility that goes with the job. I'd like to know if those social workers who were supposed to be looking after baby P lost their jobs?

Not sure, but if they didn't, they certainly should have.

Money_Grabber13579

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

I don't see this working in any business today. The further up the chain you go, the more removed you are from day-to-day operations and man management. The role becomes more about business strategy - how to make the business more profitable and how to deliver shareholder value.

If those at the top really are responsible for what everyone below them does, then the CEO/COO should be sacked whenever an employee is sacked

Oh and all the managers above Sharon Shoesmith should be sacked, right up to the PM!!!

But then why was Sir Fred sacked? It wasn't because he got onto his computer one day and did billions of pounds in deals that went bad. It was because the people below him destroyed the bank, and all the time he didn't intervene to stop them, by sending directions back down the chain of command.

Middle management don't actually have that much responsibility. It is more their duty to communicate messages from the very top down to the regular workers. They have some responsibility, but it is rather limited.

Debt_Free_Chick

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

But then why was Sir Fred sacked?

He wasn't sacked. And the reason he wasn't sacked was that there was nothing to sack him for. He did, however, sign a compromise agreement.

It wasn't because he got onto his computer one day and did billions of pounds in deals that went bad. It was because the people below him destroyed the bank, and all the time he didn't intervene to stop them, by sending directions back down the chain of command.

Who knows what part of his job he failed to do, but I rather suspect it was more to do with the rapid overseas expansion of RBS and the purchase of ABN Amro, in particular that "did for him". Although, if the banking system hadn't been jeopardised as a whole, he might still be there. Who knows what would have happened .....

Middle management don't actually have that much responsibility. It is more their duty to communicate messages from the very top down to the regular workers. They have some responsibility, but it is rather limited.

Depends on the organisation. In many companies, middle management run a business unit and can be responsible for the profitability and growth of that unit. Just depends .....

DVardysShadow

RiverStar wrote: »

Hi Lynz, probably, just felt a moment of anger there after reading and had to comment.
DVardy apologies if were trying to add some humour.

No, I was not trying to inject humour. I was just presenting the logical extension of the comment I was replying to. Sorry if it did not stand out as being too ridiculous to take seriously.

RiverStar

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Just think, it is only the fact that they are in clink which prevents Baby P's parents from reading this thread and baying for SS's blood because the system had let them down and allowed Baby P to be murdered. Perhaps we should let them out to join in the outrage. After all, for them it is not hypothetical.

Having re-read the post, perhaps it depends on how people interprete posts and your reply seemed to be verging sympathy with the parents.

(QUOTE=No, I was not trying to inject humour. I was just presenting the logical extension of the comment I was replying to. Sorry if it did not stand out as being too ridiculous to take seriously.[/QUOTE]

Well, didn't, I just thought you might be one of those people who thinks the welfare/education/discipline of their children is everyone's else's responsibility

DVardysShadow

RiverStar wrote: »

Having re-read the post, perhaps it depends on how people interprete posts and your reply seemed to be verging sympathy with the parents.

No, I was not trying to inject humour. I was just presenting the logical extension of the comment I was replying to. Sorry if it did not stand out as being too ridiculous to take seriously.

Well, didn't, I just thought you might be one of those people who thinks the welfare/education/discipline of their children is everyone's else's responsibility

Far from it. I was trying to show that invoking parents outrage does not always lend itself to sensible conclusions.