17 yr old dismissed despite not being at fault

j.e.j.

k12479 wrote: »

Actually, it's society's problem because...
There are literally thousands of people in our county who have benefited...
...from this highly qualified, part-time 17 year old's work.

of course, I was forgetting that!

Uncertain

daska wrote: »

......I am not easily gobsmacked, I grew up in a cult for starters.

I had a couple of comments drafted but I really don't think they are needed...

daska

Fair question, 10,500 who could/have have potentially benefitted from it in the last year. And very few out of the demographic who wouldn't be affected, I'm trying to find some figures so I can take a stab at deducting specific groups where the take-up rate might be reduced.

And yes, she got others involved, but she was the one making the phonecalls etc. and no it wasn't work related, the benefit to people from that was very small in number but potentially far more valuable to those individuals.

j.e.j.

Caroline_a wrote: »

To be honest I think there was less fuss about the sack of Rome!

Ah but did the mutinous troops of the holy roman emperor have this special 'mystery' qualification...:laugh:

No, but seriously I suppose this stuff might all make sense "i.r.l", ..or it might not. (I have my doubts!) It brings to mind a programme I was listening to ages ago about cv companies who, shall we say, put a 'positive gloss' on people's achievements and past jobs. One bloke apparently put on his cv that he'd made a significant contribution to production while working at the BBC. When they investigated it turned out he'd been loading the dishwasher in the canteen.:rotfl:

Sambucus_Nigra

daska wrote: »

Fair question, 10,500 who could/have have potentially benefitted from it in the last year. And very few out of the demographic who wouldn't be affected, I'm trying to find some figures so I can take a stab at deducting specific groups where the take-up rate might be reduced.

And yes, she got others involved, but she was the one making the phonecalls etc. and no it wasn't work related, the benefit to people from that was very small in number but potentially far more valuable to those individuals.

Not quite sure what you are getting from this? Either it is confidential - or it isn't. If it is then don't give any clues away and if it isn't - just say it.

All this pretend subterfuge makes you look like completely mentile [as Adam and Joe would say].

Sambucus_Nigra

j.e.j. wrote: »

Ah but did the mutinous troops of the holy roman emperor have this special 'mystery' qualification...:laugh:

The course cost £200 and was 9 days long - the OP has talked about it before.

daska

Brilliant, well at least he helped keep them in clean crockery LOL, but hardly significant, unlike DSD's contribution.

Blackpool_Saver

some nasty people on here

FATBALLZ

This is pretty sad really, (some) older people are always so quick to fully accept and shout about negative stories about young people in the Mail and other stirring rags, yet when they hear something about a young person who is an exceptional achiever at a young age, well that can't possibly be right can it?

Even decades of experience doesn't automatically make you a more useful employee than somebody who is young but very good at the job, I've worked with some right old dossers over the years, who've learnt and progressed little because they don't have the skills, attitude or motivation to succeed.

Maybe the OP is exaggerating, maybe she isn't, but some young people are exceptional and should be praised, get over it.

daska

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

The course cost £200 and was 9 days long - the OP has talked about it before.

No, it didn't, and it wasn't. That, as corrected earlier, was a different qualification.