So the lazy little bastard called the MD to say I was having a go at him and bullying him.
I was because he was not pulling his weight.
So the MD drives up to Leyburn and makes an unexpected visit.
And what does he find? He finds the lazy little f***er sat on a chair in a classroom on his phone.
Been there, had a visit from the safeguarding team from the apprenticeship place. I was f****ng outraged, they are effectively protected from being asked to work.
Nothing new in that. I had a complaint against me in 2004 from someone whose accusations were contradicted by several of his peers (some of whom went further and said they wouldn't have put up with him). But as I was managing his work the departmental policy made me guilty: in essence, part of my job was to make sure he didn't feel bullied, so if he did that's it. No "would a reasonable person..." test. You've gotta believe the victim.
I just ran this past a senior HR person, who said that it is rubbish. The 'victim' is not always believed.
Bill
I was referring to the policy in place where I was employed in 2004. If your HR guru can tell me why I must be wrong about that I'd be very interested as the barrister I consulted at the time thought I was stuffed unless I could show the complainant was lying - i.e. acting maliciously.
Malicious is a good word.
Sounds like you were badly advised.
Bill
Not the case - it's a policy, tailored to each organisation. Not a law.
I've worked in a couple of places that have victim-oriented policy for cases of, for example, racism and domestic violence. We'd believe the victim in our efforts to redress the injury. It didn't make any difference to the alleged perpetrator - a stiff letter at most. But that had to be very carefully worded in case of libel (or something, I don't know the legal details). Of course, if there was a legal case to be made it'd be pursued - but often it was one word against another.
IMHO, the system was very rarely abused - in fact never in my experience.
None of this seemed to occur in the days when I was hat age, and too many days missing from the day release courses ended up in termination for many a lazy so called Apprentice. Often, if you are just not interested in the job, go out and find something that is interesting. People will be happier for it. Brian
I think often today they are shuffled into these positions by "Job Centres" who have boxes to tick and targets to meet weaponised by the suspension of benefits if they don't accept a job.
Dave
That's nothing new. I gave up trying to recruit through the Job Centre before the turn of the century. They always sent people who nowhere near matched my specifications, just to get them and the applicant recorded as having tried.
If it was one person's word against another, how would you know?
It is someone irritating to have people who choose to interfere in other people's relationships, without any real way or knowing the truth, or the nuance, come out with self-serving bullshit.
OK, it is probably better, on balance, to sometimes act in an uncertain world, but you should understand your limitations.
Sorry mistake. Should have been...
It is *somewhat* irritating
By checking in person like Adam's MD did.
In this case it isn't hard to check if the apprentice is a lazy malicioius liar.
i.e. In the case, the system was abused.
But even then, you don't really know, the kid may have been working hard all day and just rested for a minute. ARW and the kid know the truth, but a single incident observed by the MD could just be a freak occurrence, abnormal. The MD could have turned up and, by chance, seen the rare occurence the kid do some work.
And we know that adam doesn't lie about stuff like that.
Not when adam already told him that the apprentice is a lazy malicious liar.
Well all the MD had to do was ask him to point and show what work he had done that day.
Three lengths of trunking in 4 hours 45 minutes was the answer.
And a rather not so tricky cut that looked like this and I made him rip out and start again.
No, you don't know for certain. I just know the people I dealt with, how to put this, wouldn't lie about things like that - being beaten up by a partner or racist abuse for example. You just don't. Plus there was usually some element of corroboration but it wouldn't pass the legal test of proof for a conviction. All accounts were run through a legal team.
It was in council housing in the 90s. I saw every myth exploded during the 5 or so years I was there - from 'getting pregnant to get a flat' to 'discrimination against whites'. Well, nearly every myth. There was some corruption, and some of what's said about managers and politicians.
As a white middle(ish) class man it certainly changed my way of looking at things.
That is your answer. The kid might have pointed to the work someone else did and claimed credit. On the other hand, it might be the case that he couldn't show any results, because you had sent him to the shops and ordered him to make coffee, etc. Had him running around like a blue arsed fly, but ensured he had nothing to show for it.
Perhaps the liars I have worked with are better at it, but people do tell big porkies.
If he wishes to claim credit for the other f****rs work see my other post:-)
Because that will not gain him any points
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required