17 yr old dismissed despite not being at fault

Mischa8

daska wrote: »

It's really very discouraging to see so many people making so much effort to denigrate a girl who has helped so many and worked so hard.

Anyway it's all sorted now. No threats or mudslinging needed. The person responsible for the hoohaa has left, DSD etc reinstated, on firmer contracts and with protocols being re-written to ensure that personal politics is no longer able to destroy what so many have worked for.

I admit that mudslinging occurred but can you please point out where anyone threatened you or your SD?

No-one ever threatened either of you, we were just disbelieving (and some of us still are TBH) as to what qualifications your SD had achieved etc in her short period of time at her job?

As was pointed out before, a few people tried to help you but at most turns you seemed to relish withholding information about SD and her qualification. Is it any wonder some of us were doubting Thomas' over this scenario?

I would never threaten a person so young but I and others here are well within our rights to ask pertinent questions.

Mischa8

daska wrote: »

Could you try reading what I actually wrote?

I did specifically say that was not work related.

If you want any hope of redeeming yourself your best point of call is to repost.

This post IS now over 9 pages long. Some of us have better things to do than trawl through the whole 9 pages, entertaining though they may be.

daska

Mischa8 wrote: »

I admit that mudslinging occurred but can you please point out where anyone threatened you or your SD?

No-one ever threatened either of you, we were just disbelieving (and some of us still are TBH) as to what qualifications your SD had achieved etc in her short period of time at her job?

As was pointed out before, a few people tried to help you but at most turns you seemed to relish withholding information about SD and her qualification. Is it any wonder some of us were doubting Thomas' over this scenario?

I would never threaten a person so young but I and others here are well within our rights to ask pertinent questions.

Without any threats or mudslinging on OUR part! People here suggested that we could cause problems by doing so, and yes we could have, but we didn't. One polite letter bringing it to the attention of the correct person, that's it. He's the one who had the battle - and obviously won. :j

I did try to answer pertinent questions, in fact when I gave figures I got criticised for that as well! Who would post telling everyone why their child was on the national news?

And I have said that I understand why people struggle to believe the scenario, but it's all factual. I'm a long-time poster, I know I rub some people up the wrong way and vice versa (not feeling very charitable towards Thorsoak atm to be honest - manicurist?!) but would posting a fictitious thread be in character? What would I have to gain from making up a thread like this?

RichardD1970

daska wrote: »

DSD is 17 but has a higher professional qualification than most of her more senior colleagues - to the point that the employer regularly lauded her (and the other employee involved) for their ability and commitment.

Suffice to say that the fact the both DSD and the lad responsible are more highly qualified has lead to resentment, especially on the part of staff (including relations of the people who decided to sack her) who have lost shifts because the manager, quite reasonably, wants to retain his most highly qualified staff.


she is more highly qualified than most of the others.

They will need to recruit replacement staff and their reason for not covering shifts legally earlier on was the scarcity of applicants with the necessary qualification.

people without the qualification are not allowed to do the work.

All quotes from the first 2 pages, how can you now say that the qualification is not work related? Or am I missing something?

daska

The qualification is work related. What she accomplished that benefits thousands is not. I did say somewhere that what she does at work wouldn't benefit anywhere near as many people.

bluesnake

daska wrote: »

The qualification is work related. What she accomplished that benefits thousands is not. I did say somewhere that what she does at work wouldn't benefit anywhere near as many people.

Got it, a perfect match!
She artificially inseminates turkeys on one of those charity farms.

daska

bluesnake wrote: »

Got it, a perfect match!
She artificially inseminates turkeys on one of those charity farms.

stop it, that one nearly made me wet myself

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

j.e.j.

RichardD1970 wrote: »

All quotes from the first 2 pages, how can you now say that the qualification is not work related? Or am I missing something?

you are not missing something, - OP writes in riddles and contradicts herself a lot in her replies

Still, glad the letter's been sent off to the top bod, who's received it, got rid of the 'baddie' and reinstated the step-daughter.. all within about a day :rotfl:

bluesnake wrote: »

Got it, a perfect match!
She artificially inseminates turkeys on one of those charity farms.

:rotfl::rotfl::T
brilliant!

daska

erm, yes, he did miss something, so many people have got carried away on here repeating assumptions or criticisms written by others that most of the responses don't refer to what I wrote

e.g. in response to a question about what it was that benefited so many people

daska wrote: »

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.

maninthestreet

.....and they all lived happily ever after....