I have been suspended

robpw2

Treehugged wrote: »

I don't even have a bedside.

lol , i suppose hugging trees doesnt give much chance to sleep lol:D

Treehugged

robpw2 wrote: »

lol , i suppose hugging trees doesnt give much chance to sleep lol:D

No. :rotfl::(

amyloofoo

trillion wrote: »

I appreciate the kindness of members trying to help the OP out, but if by some slim chance they didn't lose their job as well as losing the right to work in the same sector again, would members like to think of someone like that 'caring' for their frail, blind mother in future?

I think in this case the employers and ISA are likely to make the best decision for everyone when they have the full facts. There is a small measure of discretion for the employer in this case, dependent on the actual circumstances surrounding what happened and whether this was an error of judgement by someone who lacked proper training or financial abuse from a calculating individual.

If the OP is someone just out of school, lacking adequate training and new to the sector who needed money for a crisis, was having a tough time and was offered a short-term loan by a client who was sound of mind; then of course they shouldn't have accepted this but it's a very different scenario to an experienced care worker deliberately persuading someone to hand over money, then refusing to pay this back.

Neither situation is right and both are serious breaches of trust that could lead to dismissal. However I would argue that in the first instance that individual acted out of a lack of knowledge and common sense, and could be offered supervision, training and guidance - and if this was successful may very well turn out to be a good care worker in the future. For someone who has deliberately abused their position of trust, there is absolutely no other option than to refer to the ISA and they shouldn't be able to work in the sector again.

Employers and the ISA both recognise that care workers are individuals who face the same pressures as anyone else, and that genuine mistakes can sometimes be made. Whilst I agree that it's very unlikely that the OP could (and possibly should) keep their job; there is the small possibility that the circumstances might show this to be appropriate. If we only want people to be cared for by individuals who are infallible then the sector will be even more understaffed than it is now. Those who have made a genuine mistake, rectify it, learn from the experience and improve their practice should be given an opportunity to prove themselves IMHO.

I'm by no means an expert on the ISA, but this is my understanding from reading their guidelines; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

marybelle01

I

KiKi wrote: »

Um...?!

(That kind've implies I run some dodgy escort business from my home, no?)

it never even occurred to me. I was thinking more along the lines of not asking clients for a loan to get one!

Errata

trillion wrote: »

I appreciate the kindness of members trying to help the OP out, but if by some slim chance they didn't lose their job as well as losing the right to work in the same sector again, would members like to think of someone like that 'caring' for their frail, blind mother in future?

Why does the OP need helping out. They financially abused a vulnerable person whose care they were responsible for, and whose duty it was to protect them from any abuse.
The only help I'd like to offer the OP is, fortunately, unprintable!

Uncertain

Errata wrote: »

Why does the OP need helping out. They financially abused a vulnerable person whose care they were responsible for, and whose duty it was to protect them from any abuse.
The only help I'd like to offer the OP is, fortunately, unprintable!

Ah, you mean give them a fair trial then hang them?

Errata

Uncertain wrote: »

Ah, you mean give them a fair trial then hang them?

If they'd borrowed once and 'forgotten' to pay back then perhaps they might be slightly deserving of a fair trial. But they did it twice! And I doubt we're talking about the cost of a bus fare home.

KiKi

marybelle01 wrote: »

I

it never even occurred to me. I was thinking more along the lines of not asking clients for a loan to get one!

Ah. That was too lateral for me. You mixed a discussion on something else to the original post which I didn't see, and throw in the confusion that I *do* have clients, I was completely lost.

amyloofoo

Errata wrote: »

If they'd borrowed once and 'forgotten' to pay back then perhaps they might be slightly deserving of a fair trial. But they did it twice! And I doubt we're talking about the cost of a bus fare home.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find that the OP says this has happened more than once.

Uncertain

amyloofoo wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find that the OP says this has happened more than once.

The OP did refer to "a couple of occasions" but I can't see that makes much difference.

We are all agreed it shouldn't have happened but if they borrowed once and repaid then it strengthens the argument that there was no intention to permanently deprive.