On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:06:24 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
This is a tragic situation indeed, and clearly nobody can condone the
alleged bullying. However, I think that it is a very long stretch to
suggest that involvement of a union would necessarily have helped, and it
is certainly not the only route as you are implying.
My point is that some employers are notorious for bad staff conditions, bad
working practices and being non-union shops. The attributes go together.
No they don't. I might agree to a point that bad staff conditions
and bad working practices could go together. I don't agree that being
a non union shop makes for these conditions to occur. That's just
wishful thinking on the part of those who would wish to promote union
presence in a business.
If you consider the reality of fast food outlets, they sell cheap
crappy food to people who care little for their diet and are buy on
speed and price. They employ predominantly teenage and slightly
above age range labour and generally a manager who is little older
than that at very low labour rates. For that to change significantly,
it would require customers to demand much high quality food and be
willing to pay much higher prices. That is not the ethos of these
types of business or of their customer base.
It is a little difficult to imagine a 19 year old acting in the role
of a union official with the role of H&S policeman.
What would have happened if the union rep had been involved in the
bullying? Not impossible. This was not a case of the employer doing the
bullying in the article that you quote or any others that seem to be
readily accessible.
I'm not sure where the case lies legally but more details are known locally
than are included in the newspapers - and you're wrong on a number of counts.
I am not wrong on any counts. A fairly quick search on Google
revealed a number of articles. I didn't find a single one where
anybody suggested that the employer (or manager) took part in the
bullying).
If you look at the BBC article following the verdict of the inquest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4508022.stm
From the article:
*******
Giving his reaction to the verdict, Rochdale Coroner Simon Nelson
said: "KFC is clearly a large organisation with several thousand
employees in the UK alone.
"Many of those employees are young, impressionable, vulnerable or a
combination of those attributes, as was Hannah.
"KFC's reaction to this inquiry in my view was appropriate, sensitive
and proactive."
He added he hoped anti-bullying policies made by the firm would
prevent "similar tragic incidents".
*******
In another article,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4504014.stm
the GP observes
"The stressful events could have led to her depression,"
and the police confirm that an investigation did not produce enough
evidence to bring charges.
Further in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4507374.stm
the employer states that those involved in the bullying had left the
company.
In other words, none of the professionals involved was able, on the
medical and other evidence, to say that there was a direct causal link
between the bullying and the severe depression. Note that the
psychiatrist is not mentioned (presumably not called as a witness).
This alone would weaken or rule out criminal proceedings against the
perpetrators of the bullying let alone the employer. Your suggestion
that the employer be charged with manslaughter is an emotive
extrapolation beyond reasonable consideration.
Look at the bottom of the web page for an indication of one aspect of the
employer's responsibility to their employee.
Obviously an employer has a duty of care to their employees, and this
employer has instituted measures considered appropriate by the coroner
to do so.
And I think you will find that it is far more likely that employers join in
such bullying than union reps.
Really? So in this case we would have a 22 year old? manager and a
bunch of 16-20 year olds, one of whom would be a union rep.?
More likely it is a bunch of 16-20 year olds doing what 16-20 year
olds sometimes do (in any social setting) and perhaps an inexperienced
manager who didn't know what to do.
Of course, union reps are never involved in bullying of people on how
to vote, whether or not to withdraw their labour, even if they think
that it is the wrong thing to do, never use violence or other
intimidation......
The GP said
"The stressful events could have led to her depression".
One has to ask what was going on between the June and December. Other
articles mention inpatient treatment for serious depression etc. That is
beyond the remit of a union official.
It certainly is not. Had she been able to get someone on her side supporting
her secure employment her condition is going to be critically different - ask
any doctor.
I have.
Is a union official medically qualified as a psychiatrist? No.
Are they trained counsellors belonging to one of the professional
bodies? No.
Somebody with severe depressive illness requires at least one or
probably both skillsets. This goes way beyond a "shoulder to cry
on".
More importantly the victimisation is likely to end quickly or
never even start. In this case a letter from the employee to regional
management wasn't even opened.
The company gave a perfectly reasonable explanation of that and the
coroner found the company's actions completely acceptable.
If a union had been involved it could have very
quickly escalated to whichever level in management agreed to take proper
notice fast. If none took notice then they'd find themselves running a company
with no income coming in - but as a union company they would have learned to
respond at a junior manager level and, the problem here, have learned that it
paid to train managers properly.
A union company wouldn't be in business in that market, so none of the
problems would have arisen.
There are a number of unanswered questions in this case:
- Why did the girl take 6 months to write a letter to the employer?
- Why did she return to the same place of employment after a break of
6 months even though she had been bullied?
- Did the parents know about the letter to the employer?
- Did they help follow it up?
- Why wasn't the psychiatrist involved in the inquest?
- What else was going on in the girl's life?
None of this is to suggest that this isn't a tragic case or that the
depressive illness was not contributed to by the bullying. However,
there are a lot of pieces that have not been made public and the
employer has not been held responsible. Moreover, the employer has
instituted what the coroner believes to be a satisfactory system to
handle bullying and harassment.
Either way it does not suggest that union involvement would have been
practical, helpful or ultimately would have made a difference.
The law is too weak in many areas - along with others around here I'd like
to see KFC senior managers in prison for manslaughter - and there are
places and times where only unions can offer the support that employees
need.
That's completely ridiculous. The employer has since set up a help line
for employees to use, which seems pretty sensible.
PR.
If they really cared they'd have done it earlier. In any case what is required
is for the whole company organisation to be put on a proper footing.
It is, and the coroner has accepted that.
An independent counsellor would be even better.
Someone totally independent of the company would be a geat idea.
Somebody totally independent altogether such as a trained counsellor
would be the great idea.
--
..andy