Jobcenter worker sacked for activism

[dylans]

the BBC's favourite hijab-wearer, Cllr Salmonella Yakult, t?

Whatever issues you have with Respect, is it really necessary to hurl what is essentially racist abuse at a Muslim woman?

Attacking her choice of dress for example. She's a Muslim woman and you are insulting her for wearing a headscarf.

That's racist as far as I can see. If she were a Sikh man would you make an issue of his Turban?

Also taking the piss out of her name because it sounds a bit funny.Ha ha. Stupid Asian name sounds like Salmonella. Very funny. This is racism pure and simple.
Can't you make your point without resorting to racism?

Good luck Mark. I think you can see, most people are disgusted by your treatment.

 

[belboid]

Can't you make your point without resorting to racism?

in JHE's case, no. He hates 'mozza's'

 

[CyberRose]

It may interest people to know that a senior DWP boss in Bromyard Hereford [part of the 'Marches District of the DWP which includes Bromsgrove] is a tory local councillor and currently a town mayor who spoke controversially to the media last month in support of the occupation of afghanistan on the occasion of a Bromyard born soldier who was killed in helmand.

And that is exactly the point I've been trying to make to people!

Politically active people (like racist BNP members for that matter) are unlikely to let their personal views/activities affect their job, however, a small portion will. That's why the rules are there for certain public jobs (much like speed limits are there for the minority of drivers who are dangerous when driving fast).

What you say above (assuming he had a bearing on your job) is a clear example of somebody who is politically motivated allowing it to affect how they do their job. If the rules are as I understand them to be, no way should he be allowed to do his job and take part in his political activities

 

[Spion]

Whatever issues you have with Respect, is it really necessary to hurl what is essentially racist abuse at a Muslim woman?

Attacking her choice of dress for example. She's a Muslim woman and you are insulting her for wearing a headscarf.

That's racist as far as I can see. If she were a Sikh man would you make an issue of his Turban?

Also taking the piss out of her name because it sounds a bit funny.Ha ha. Stupid Asian name sounds like Salmonella. Very funny. This is racism pure and simple.
Can't you make your point without resorting to racism?

Good luck Mark. I think you can see, most people are disgusted by your treatment.

Ah, you've met JHE. You have to ignore him. He's about 80 and has trouble with all these folks with funny names living here these days

 

[JHE]

If she were a Sikh man would you make an issue of his Turban?

I don't know about 'making an issue' of his turban, but funnily enough it is extremely easy to think of someone who deserves to be called the BBC's favourite turban-wearer: Hardeep Singh Kohli. I'm not sure why the BBC is so very keen on him, but he's OK.

 

[JHE]

And that is exactly the point I've been trying to make to people!

Politically active people (like racist BNP members for that matter) are unlikely to let their personal views/activities affect their job, however, a small portion will. That's why the rules are there for certain public jobs (much like speed limits are there for the minority of drivers who are dangerous when driving fast).

What you say above (assuming he had a bearing on your job) is a clear example of somebody who is politically motivated allowing it to affect how they do their job. If the rules are as I understand them to be, no way should he be allowed to do his job and take part in his political activities

No, the story of the Tory doesn't support your point at all. It just shows that some other people who work for the DWP have been allowed to be politically active. It does NOT show that allowing people to be politically active has been harmful to their ability to do their work properly.

 

[belboid]

I don't know about 'making an issue' of his turban, but funnily enough it is extremely easy to think of someone who deserves to be called the BBC's favourite turban-wearer: Hardeep Singh Kohli. I'm not sure why the BBC is so very keen on him, but he's OK.

JHE ignores point, horror.

 

[CyberRose]

No, the story of the Tory doesn't support your point at all. It just shows that some other people who work for the DWP have been allowed to be politically active. It does NOT show that allowing people to be politically active has been harmful to their ability to do their work properly.

Eh?! But what if his political activity/motivation/loyalty was the reason this guy got sacked?! That's pretty much the opinion of every other person posting on this thread and if it is true it is a great example of why these non-activist rules are in place (albeit in this case they would have been selectively applied...)

 

[JHE]

Eh?! But what if his political activity/motivation/loyalty was the reason this guy got sacked?! That's pretty much the opinion of every other person posting on this thread and if it is true it is a great example of why these non-activist rules are in place (albeit in this case they would have been selectively applied...)

I don't know what you are going on about now.

Look, here is the situation as I understand it:

1. A Tory working for DWP is politically active. He's NOT sacked.

2. A BNPer working for DWP is politically active. He's NOT sacked.

3. Another DWP worker, a "lefty activist", in or around al-Respeq, the failing Islamo-Trot lash-up, is politically active in some campaign against some MP who's alleged to have been on the fiddle. He IS sacked. There is a notable lack of clarity about the real motivation for the sacking, though it seems to be about his campaigning work. Given the rules we have at the moment, his employer can almost certainly get away with sacking him - unless there is a great deal of staunch support from his fellow workers.

4. In none of the three cases - Tory, BNPer or al-Respeker - is there any evidence (that we've been told of) that the individual was not doing his job properly, let alone that he was not doing it properly as a result of political activity.

5. CRose thinks it's OK to sack people for being politically active. He claims political activity will make people unable to do their jobs properly (though he presents no evidence for this) and sympathises with employers who sack workers for political activity.


Am I mistaken about any of that? Please be specific.

 

[CyberRose]

Am I mistaken about any of that? Please be specific.

Jesus! I said (and I see I'm going to have to start using bold or italics so even somebody like you can get it through you thick head) IF the Tory boy (who, apparently, is in a high position and is suspected by many on here of having influence over the sacking of this guy) had a hand in this sacking because he was motivated by his political allegiances (ie sacking people for having the wrong political views to him, do you understand that? please tell me if not) then that is an example of somebody's political loyalties affecting how they do their job

That the DWP appear to selectively apply these rules is not my fucking problem, nor is it something I've ever tried to justify

Now if any of this is too hard for your fragile little mind to comprehend then I suggest you stop trying and just enjoy X Factor when it returns to your screen on Saturday

 

[JHE]

That the DWP appear to selectively apply these rules is not my fucking problem, nor is it something I've ever tried to justify

You'd sympathise with a more thoroughgoing (less selective) purge!

 

[CyberRose]

You'd sympathise with a more thoroughgoing (less selective) purge!

Good answer mate, bravo

 

[cesare]

In employment terms, I think the DWP would have a very hard time justifying this policy for junior workers - unless they could demonstrate that the political activity actually affected the performance of the job and/or the environment of the workplace. They could more easily make out a case for an active BNP supporter because of the racism angle.

And gross misconduct i.e. fundamental breach of contract? Problematic and potentially very costly/damaging.

Like JHE, I'm also surprised that Respect seemingly haven't identified the political leverage here (let alone the solidarity aspect).

 

[JHE]

Rose, you should try not get so petulent when your position is pointed out.

The really sad thing is that nowadays many people will agree with at least some portion of your pro-sacking position. Some will agree with sacking BNPers. Others will agree with sacking active trade unionists or commies or al-Respekers. Some defend the current rules that give far too much freedom to sack to employers. Some, like you, go the whole hog and think you can and should kick politically active people out of public services, as if having political views or activity were somehow unacceptable.

What a lot of nasty illiberal people there are!

 

[cesare]

What a lot of nasty illiberal people there are!

Guilty. I'm most illiberal in my intolerance for racism, for example.

 

[JHE]

And gross misconduct i.e. fundamental breach of contract? Problematic and potentially very costly/damaging.

But what can you do if the person hasn't been in the job for 12 months?

(Even an Employment Tribunal, which he could use if he'd been in the job for 12 months, couldn't force the employer to reinstate. At best, it'd get the ex-employee some compensation dosh.)

As far as I can see the only way of getting Mark French his job back would be for his workmates to force management to be reasonable - and as far as we know, that's not happening. (I'd love to find I'm mistaken about that last point.)

 

[cesare]

But what can you do if the person hasn't been in the job for 12 months?

(Even an Employment Tribunal, which he could use if he'd been in the job for 12 months, couldn't force the employer to reinstate. At best, it'd get the ex-employee some compensation dosh.)

As far as I can see the only way of getting Mark French his job back would be for his workmates to force management to be reasonable - and as far as we know, that's not happening. (I'd love to find I'm mistaken about that last point.)

I did post about this earlier but maybe I was a bit oblique. The gross misconduct angle gives him an opportunity to make an ET claim for wrongful dismissal (cos breach of contract isn't service related) -- the ET's a public gallery so beyond the costs of the DWP defending the claim, there's a shitload of PR/political leverage to be had.

It's potentially a claim for damages only rather than reinstatement/re-engagement, so yep, no job back. But maybe a decent amount of compensation to settle before tribunal hearing. And maybe, just maybe, the DWP would see sense in giving him his job back anyway, for their own political/PR spin on it. If that happened, they'd sacrifice the middle manager that made the decision, plus hang out the HR adviser/s to dry, but I reckon they'd take the hit on that.

In terms of workmates, yep that'd help. But realistically workmates ain't gonna get as het up about the shenanigans of politicians as they are about ties and how it personally affects them. Then factor in the union seeming to be toothless/useless. Looks like he's on his own with this one, unless he gets smart

 

[cesare]

I'm probably still being oblique, sorry.

Less than 12 months continuous service >>> no rights to make an Unfair Dismissal claim in the Employment Tribunal.

Idiot employers dismissing for Gross Misconduct in probationary period (when they could have quietly dismissed without making a gross misconduct issue of it) >>> gateway to wrongful dismissal claim i.e. gross misconduct that actually wasn't that gross i.e. wrongful/breach of contract.

In summary, the employers have hyped it up to gross misconduct level which opens it up to a public breach of contract claim. Astounding stupidity when all they had to do to get rid of their pain in the arse employee was to just dismiss him quietly with notice in his probationary period. Facepalm.

 

[CyberRose]

The really sad thing is that nowadays many people will agree with at least some portion of your pro-sacking position.

But these rules aren't about sacking are they? The rules are about certain people being prevented from taking up certain sensitive jobs in the first place.

Men can't get a job teaching girls PE. Does that mean all men will abuse young girls? Of course not. Criminals can't get a job working for the police. Does that mean anyone with a criminal record will be a corrupt policeman? Of course not. Foreign nationals can't work for the Foreign Office. Does that mean all foreign nationals will be a spy? Of course not. Members of racist parties are not allowed to take up certain jobs. Does that mean they will be racist to their customers? Of course not. It's about risk. In each of these jobs there is a (small) risk attached to them that the work they do could be undermined if they allow certain people to work for them.

With some public sector jobs, it has been decided that there is a risk that highly political individuals will not be able to do their work impartially, and for that reason certain levels of political activism are not allowed. It's shit for the majority that would never let their political allegiances affect their work, but the rules are there because some highly political people would (and have) let their work be affected by it.

I've never said that anyone who is an activist should be sacked just because, all I've done is explain why these rules are here in the first place. I have no problems with activists working in any job as long as they keep their opinions to themselves and don't let it affect their job, but I understand why we have these rules (unlike everyone else on this thread it seems - even the ones that are outraged that this particular sacking was apparently politically motivated can't see the irony in their anger!).

 

[Spion]

So, CR, do you think Mark France's dismissal was wrong or right?

It's hard to discern through all the Panglossian waffle

 

[CyberRose]

So, CR, do you think Mark France's dismissal was wrong or right?

It's hard to discern through all the Panglossian waffle

I even looked up the definition of Panglossian and still am none the wiser!

Anyway, I'm unclear as to what restrictions were actually in Mr France's contract, so far all I've been able to go by is the BBC article in which it states political activism is considered a breach of contract. However, others on here have contradicted that. If political activism is forbidden in his contract then it's harsh but at the end of the day (as he apparently did not let it affect his work) he broke his contract, and you can't not expect to be sacked if you break your contract for gross misconduct. If, on the other hand, those restrictions do not apply to somebody at his level, then of course he should not have been sacked.

Whichever of the above is true, it is still extremely unfair to sack Mr France while at the same time allow others (including a BNP!) to get away with what he has apparently been sacked for and that is certainly something I would recommend he brings up in his disciplinary.

 

[butchersapron]

Wtf has the contract got to do with it?

 

[cesare]

CyberRose - the BBC article says that it's their Code of Conduct and it doesn't say anything about whether or not that Code is contractual.

But even if it was, they would still have to justify that breaching that particular term was a fundamental breach of the entire employment contract warranting a sanction of summary dismissal for gross misconduct.

And from what we know at the moment, I'd say that was extremely doubtful.