ballaughbiker

Indeed, it was way over the top as was accessing private property "just to check" those subject to quarantine were actually at home with zero indication whatsoever that they had not been.

We only know about this case because it went to tribunal. One wonders how many cases get 'settled' to avoid both public and off-island scrutiny. I know of two cases over the last 30+ years where decent, ethical, able and hardworking clinicians were treated very badly indeed by the employer both due to, imo, middle managers with way too much executive power linked to too little managerial experience. It is also my opinion that one of these cases involved a degree of victimisation and vexatious behavior by the clinical middle manager involved who had a known departmental track record of managerial concerns going back years. I understand that both cases resulted in significant settlements at public expense to (one assumes) avoid tribunal where the Manx public (and UK media) would have been shocked at how one of these clinicians in particularly was treated during the due process.

I'm not commenting on this judgement but I hear the employer has 'previous.' I remember back in the late 80s or maybe 1990, a para-medical professional's union placed an advert in a national professional journal warning potential applicants about a post that had become vacant here due to the dismissal of the previous incumbent. The ad encouraged potential applicants to phone this union for a briefing before applying and I was tasked with finding out what it was about. Apparently this highly paid and very well respected professionally registered employee had been allegedly unfairly dismissed and that the offending line manager (also registered with their appropriate council) was still in post. I understand that a significant settlement was eventually made to the dismissed employee which was kept from the public. I know of at least one more case (remarkably for same post but different line manager this time) where a significant secret payout was made to the professional to avoid, I assume, having to go to tribunal. NB .. again this was kept from the public.

I knew I was doing something wrong. Never had one day off ill when I worked for them. Just asked the one in the house that still does. A handful (well <10) of days off ill in 30+ years. To get that average of 12.5/year some must be having weeks off each year so that will involve agreement of a GP. 😉

Yep me too but being old, I'm not quite as blasé. My son had a similar idea of covid to you until last week when he finally caught it. You're only good until you're not good but it seems the chance of a significant reaction to Covid appears to be waning.🤞

I hope you're not suggesting a "Darren" ?

Anti -teacher ideology ? Not much ...😄

You actually wouldn't have heard about this one IF the disparaging tone of the majority of your (and other's) posts on this thread hadn't indicated some degree of anti teacher ideology. Perhaps you haven't considered that some kids 'have to' be cared for much more than most imagine which is why they are some of the most challenging in the island. She is just getting on with it because somebody has to. I'd stop digging .. 😉

Yeah. I know one teacher at work today despite having a suspected lateral tibial condyle fracture (sustained at work a couple of weeks ago) . Oh and she's in her mid 60s and 'just getting on with it' dealing with some of the island's most challenging children for mediocre reward. We know you are 'sick of hearing about these teachers' and think they don't work until state retirement age but this inconvenient example has only been mentioned to balance your apparent ideology.

So they generally take advantage of the option to pull 'sickies' for minor illness do they ? Or was that just to trigger ?

The numpty decision to change the pension arrangements is a major factor in this.

Spain (Andalucia) 10% VAT France split 5% and 20%

I know you posted this simplistic crap weeks ago but IF it had any truth to it, you'd think they'd be queuing down the road and round the corner for such a job instead of leaving in their droves. or was it just your 'little joke' with its 😀 ?

That works both ways

They were in the vast majority of valid cases. That is one newspaper 'report' based on the musings of a very well known (in the profession) nutty professor who has never worked in general practice and has largely since been discredited on his general practice 'findings'. Back in the 80s, for a short time, I was of a team that was a minor part of the investigative side of the organisation that paid NHS dentists. They sometimes referred stuff to our committe as a secondary system to their usual employed individual regional inspectors if treatment reports didn't look right in any way plus many were just picked out as a random check a bit like the tax man does. High earners were checked proportionately more. We often found that under precription (aka 'supervised neglect') was the main problem plus a tiny proportion of erm 'accounting errors'. If there was any doubt, we could demand pre-treatment radiographs to check for caries and correlate those with the treatment intended or provided. In those days, a dentist had to sign a patient off as dentally fit on completion to get paid. Countless patients were sent back for further treatment for minor lesions that had been missed. Nobody likes dental treatment and to purport that much was unnecessary is every journalist's dream. They have an instant interested audience who they have just made very angry. Perfect ..