The BBC News website had an article a day or so ago saying:

"Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden is expected to promise a new
"mutually agreed exit" process, that will incentivise civil servants
performing below their requirements to leave their jobs."

Seriously? These people earn high salaries, have excellent pensions, take
no personal responsibility for anything yet we need a new process to get
rid of poor performers?

All of the companies I worked for had a disciplinary procedure and didn't hesitate to use it when necessary.

Does the Civil Service not already have such a disciplinary procedure?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q4nr42z20o

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This mess is what happens when you elect a Labour government, in the end
they will always run out of other people's money to spend.
(Margaret Thatcher on her election in 1979)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/03/2025 12:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:

The BBC News website had an  article a day or so ago saying:

"Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden is expected to promise a new
"mutually agreed exit" process, that will incentivise civil servants performing below their requirements to leave their jobs."

Seriously? These people earn high salaries, have excellent pensions,
take no personal responsibility for anything yet we need a new process
to get rid of poor performers?

All of the companies I worked for had a disciplinary procedure and
didn't hesitate to use it when necessary.

Does the Civil Service not already have such a disciplinary procedure?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q4nr42z20o

Line management have no financial responsibility and personnel are paid
out of a budget. It is therefore easier to retain someone than to get
rid of them takes an inordinate amount of paperwork to get rid of them.

Labour would like to make getting rid of low performers even more difficult.

Another alternative would be to privatise a lot of the form filling with metrics but we all know how that ended with the DWP swamping tribunals.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10 Mar 2025 at 12:05:52 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" wrote:

The BBC News website had an article a day or so ago saying:

"Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden is expected to promise a new
"mutually agreed exit" process, that will incentivise civil servants performing below their requirements to leave their jobs."

Seriously? These people earn high salaries, have excellent pensions, take
no personal responsibility for anything yet we need a new process to get
rid of poor performers?

All of the companies I worked for had a disciplinary procedure and didn't hesitate to use it when necessary.

A good chunk of the civil service, 'these people', - about 20% - are on just overn living wage - c. £27,000pa. And the top band much less than £100k:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/foi-release-pay-bands-and-structures-across-grades/foi202500001s-pay-bands-and-structures-across-grades

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-service-statistics-2024/statistical-bulletin-civil-service-statistics-2024

Does the Civil Service not already have such a disciplinary procedure?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q4nr42z20o

Of course they will have disciplinary procedures. But defining 'not
performing' is incredibly difficult.

I worked in the public sector for a while and they tried to manage performance - answer a letter within a certain time, pick up the phone after a set numbers of rings, and so on. It was absolute mayhem. I would say with some certainty that the system protected the jobs of the least effective, frustrated those
who cared about what they did, and caused the service to suffer exponentially.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/03/2025 12:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:

The BBC News website had an article a day or so ago saying:

"Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden is expected to promise a new
"mutually agreed exit" process, that will incentivise civil servants performing below their requirements to leave their jobs."

Seriously? These people earn high salaries, have excellent pensions,
take no personal responsibility for anything yet we need a new process
to get rid of poor performers?

Not all civil servants are paid high salaries. That, I would suggest, is
pretty well-known.

Neither, for last fifteen or twenty years (that's an estimate) have new recruits been entitled to the much-criticised "final salary pension".
The replacement scheme is known to be quite a bit less generous.

All of the companies I worked for had a disciplinary procedure and
didn't hesitate to use it when necessary.

Does the Civil Service not already have such a disciplinary procedure?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q4nr42z20o

Of course it does. It even has an internal investigations branch within
each department's HR establishment.

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from middle
and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both of them
absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from middle
and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both of them
absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient. I also knew of one who
fiddled mileage allowance but car shared with a colleague. I doubt he
made much money from the fiddle too.

Any criteria of inefficiency would be an incredibly low bar for a civil servant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/03/2025 in message <vqn552$1emis$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from middle and >>high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both of them absolutely >>stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient. I also knew of one who
fiddled mileage allowance but car shared with a colleague. I doubt he made >much money from the fiddle too.

Any criteria of inefficiency would be an incredibly low bar for a civil >servant.

The actual statement was "performing below their requirements". If
somebody is indeed performing below their requirements it calls for strong management action followed by disciplinary action if it fails. In some
cases of course, it is the manager who needs a prod.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from middle
and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both of them
absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

I also knew of one who
fiddled mileage allowance but car shared with a colleague. I doubt he
made much money from the fiddle too.

Any criteria of inefficiency would be an incredibly low bar for a civil servant.

If you mean it's a low bar to being classified as "efficient", I
probably agree.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from middle
and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both of them
absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the employee would be able to counter with, for example, lack of facilities, failure to provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an atrocious attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. isn’t easy.

‘Gross Misconduct’ usually leads to instant dismissal but it tends to be rare. I don’t recall it happening to anyone in my ‘work circle’ ( people I
had day to day contact with) in my working life. I know of a case outside
of work.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <vqr6rm$2f9ko$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:42:14 on Wed, 12 Mar
2025, Brian <noinv@lid.org> remarked:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from middle
and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both of them
absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the employee >would be able to counter with, for example, lack of facilities, failure to >provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an atrocious >attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. isn’t easy.

‘Gross Misconduct’ usually leads to instant dismissal but it tends
to be rare. I don’t recall it happening to anyone in my ‘work
circle’ ( people I had day to day contact with) in my working life.

I know of a case there boss got irritated by a member of staff and
struck them, but the boss didn't get fired.

I know of a case outside of work.

One I heard about locally was a lorry driver who struck a low railway
bridge and caused lots of damage. He should have known not to use that
route. See also bus drivers who slice the top off double deckers on a
fairly regular basis.

But I suspect most cases are variants of hand-in-the-till,
hand-up-a-skirt, or handing-a-relative-a-lucrative-contract.
--
Roland Perry

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/03/2025 in message <vqr6rm$2f9ko$1@dont-email.me> Brian wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from middle >>>>and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both of them >>>>absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the employee >would be able to counter with, for example, lack of facilities, failure to >provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an atrocious >attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. isn’t easy.

This is where good managers shine, they deal with poor performance, they
don't let it slide. Sometimes they need to be encouraged.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Most people have heard of Karl Marx the philosopher but few know of his
sister Onya the Olympic runner.
Her name is still mentioned at the start of every race.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/03/2025 08:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 12/03/2025 in message <vqr6rm$2f9ko$1@dont-email.me> Brian wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from middle >>>>> and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both of them
absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the
employee
would be able to counter with, for example, lack of facilities,
failure to
provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an atrocious
attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. isn’t easy.

This is where good managers shine, they deal with poor performance, they don't let it slide. Sometimes they need to be encouraged.

It was a standing joke that civil servants are promoted to one level
above their competence.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:12:30 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/03/2025 08:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 12/03/2025 in message <vqr6rm$2f9ko$1@dont-email.me> Brian wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from
middle and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both
of them absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the
employee would be able to counter with, for example, lack of
facilities,
failure to provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an atrocious
attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. isn’t easy. >>

This is where good managers shine, they deal with poor performance,
they don't let it slide. Sometimes they need to be encouraged.

It was a standing joke that civil servants are promoted to one level
above their competence.

"The Peter Principle". A universal law of nature.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/03/2025 17:31, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:12:30 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/03/2025 08:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 12/03/2025 in message <vqr6rm$2f9ko$1@dont-email.me> Brian wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from
middle and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both >>>>>>> of them absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the
employee would be able to counter with, for example, lack of
facilities,
failure to provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an atrocious
attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. isn’t easy. >>>

This is where good managers shine, they deal with poor performance,
they don't let it slide. Sometimes they need to be encouraged.

It was a standing joke that civil servants are promoted to one level
above their competence.

"The Peter Principle". A universal law of nature.

"It was a standing joke that..."
can be twinned with
"Everybody knows that..."

i.e. phrases that ought to trigger close examination.

There must be some other phrases like this.

--
Sam Plusnet

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 01:22:09 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:

On 12/03/2025 17:31, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:12:30 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/03/2025 08:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 12/03/2025 in message <vqr6rm$2f9ko$1@dont-email.me> Brian wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from >>>>>>>> middle and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both >>>>>>>> of them absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the
employee would be able to counter with, for example, lack of
facilities,
failure to provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an
atrocious attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. >>>>> isn’t easy.

This is where good managers shine, they deal with poor performance,
they don't let it slide. Sometimes they need to be encouraged.

It was a standing joke that civil servants are promoted to one level
above their competence.

"The Peter Principle". A universal law of nature.

"It was a standing joke that..."
can be twinned with "Everybody knows that..."

i.e. phrases that ought to trigger close examination.

There must be some other phrases like this.

As I said, a Universal law of nature. If it's a joke then it's funny in
the same way a falling apple hits someone on the head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

The single best book ever written on management. Should be on the
syllabus like Shakespeare ....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-13, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

On 12/03/2025 17:31, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:12:30 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/03/2025 08:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 12/03/2025 in message <vqr6rm$2f9ko$1@dont-email.me> Brian wrote:

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from >>>>>>>> middle and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both >>>>>>>> of them absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud).

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the
employee would be able to counter with, for example, lack of
facilities,
failure to provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an atrocious >>>>> attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. isn’t easy. >>>>

This is where good managers shine, they deal with poor performance,
they don't let it slide. Sometimes they need to be encouraged.

It was a standing joke that civil servants are promoted to one level
above their competence.

"The Peter Principle". A universal law of nature.

"It was a standing joke that..."
can be twinned with
"Everybody knows that..."

i.e. phrases that ought to trigger close examination.

There must be some other phrases like this.

"Many people say..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:vqu7tc$1r200$27@dont-email.me...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

The single best book ever written on management. Should be on the
syllabus like Shakespeare ..

quote:

The noblest of all dogs is the hot dog; it feeds the hand that bites it.

Laurence J. Peter

:unquote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_J._Peter


bb

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/03/2025 12:55 PM, billy bookcase wrote:

"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

The single best book ever written on management. Should be on the
syllabus like Shakespeare ..

quote:
The noblest of all dogs is the hot dog; it feeds the hand that bites it. Laurence J. Peter
:unquote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_J._Peter

bb

:-)

There really should be a "Like" button on Usenet...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/03/2025 08:27 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-03-13, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

On 12/03/2025 17:31, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:12:30 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 12/03/2025 08:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 12/03/2025 in message <vqr6rm$2f9ko$1@dont-email.me> Brian wrote: >>>>>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 04:48 PM, Fredxx wrote:

On 10/03/2025 14:20, JNugent wrote:

<snip>

I knew of people (well, a couple of them) who were sacked from >>>>>>>>> middle and high ranking positions for disciplinary offences (both >>>>>>>>> of them absolutely stupid behaviour involving internal fraud). >>>>>>>>

I agree but that's not from being inefficient.

Inefficency isn't a disciplinary matter.

Probably not in itself due to being difficult to define.

You would need specific areas of failings in performance. Plus the >>>>>> employee would be able to counter with, for example, lack of
facilities,
failure to provide training, …..

Sadly, getting rid of someone who is just lazy, even has an atrocious >>>>>> attendance history ( and I mean for no valid reason), ….. isn’t easy.

This is where good managers shine, they deal with poor performance,
they don't let it slide. Sometimes they need to be encouraged.

It was a standing joke that civil servants are promoted to one level
above their competence.

"The Peter Principle". A universal law of nature.

"It was a standing joke that..."
can be twinned with
"Everybody knows that..."

i.e. phrases that ought to trigger close examination.

There must be some other phrases like this.

"Many people say..."

"...Many of which are..." [masquerading as "most of which are"].

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/03/2025 16:33, JNugent wrote:

On 13/03/2025 08:27 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-03-13, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

"It was a standing joke that..."
can be twinned with
"Everybody knows that..."

i.e. phrases that ought to trigger close examination.

There must be some other phrases like this.

"Many people say..."

"...Many of which are..." [masquerading as "most of which are"].

"Children as young as ten..." (rioting or whatever) (One ten year old
tagging along with an older sibling.)

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13/03/2025 05:40 PM, Max Demian wrote:

On 13/03/2025 16:33, JNugent wrote:

On 13/03/2025 08:27 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:

On 2025-03-13, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

"It was a standing joke that..."
can be twinned with
"Everybody knows that..."

i.e. phrases that ought to trigger close examination.

There must be some other phrases like this.

"Many people say..."

"...Many of which are..." [masquerading as "most of which are"].

"Children as young as ten..." (rioting or whatever) (One ten year old
tagging along with an older sibling.)

I once sent an email to the producer of the Desmond Carrington Sunday
afternoon show on Radio 2.

Desmond had raised the various "theories" about the correct meaning of
the lyrics of "Puff, The Magic Dragon". I was in my car with my sixteen
year old son at the time and when I got home, I sent a message to the
effect that all the "marijuana" claims were balderdash (and had ben
declared as such by Peter, Paul and Mary).

I explained that it had always seemed obvious to me that the song is
about the loss of "magic" perceived by children as they neared and
entered their teens. I was thinking very precisely about the start of
our preparation for my son's application to universities and his
intentions to study at an establishment a long way (relatively speaking)
from home. I hadn't done that - I had my own house and I stayed local
for various reasons. I was dreading it.

Anyway, the next week, Desmond quoted the producer, boasting that the
show had listeners as young as 16!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)