Isle of Man Civil Servants

[Last Ten]

Just read this article about a former Civil Servant challenging the Government for alleged numerous issues - https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-civil-servants-claim-for-unlawful-deduction-of-wages-struck-out-687015

The problem lies directly in the IOM Civil Service, this bloke will have spent lots of his time at work conjuring up issues when he should have been actually working on behalf of us the tax payer, where were his line managers ensuring he was working for the good of the IOM?

Not fit for purpose springs to mind, but hey ho it’s us Tax Payers that pay for some of these lunatics that work for the IOM Government.

As a point of clarity not all Civil Servants are like this deluded individual.

LT

[2112]

Very costly exercise. Assuming he had a lawyer? 

[Dirty Buggane]

No doubt payed for by us.

[Happier diner]

6 hours ago, Last Ten said:

Just read this article about a former Civil Servant challenging the Government for alleged numerous issues - https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-civil-servants-claim-for-unlawful-deduction-of-wages-struck-out-687015

The problem lies directly in the IOM Civil Service, this bloke will have spent lots of his time at work conjuring up issues when he should have been actually working on behalf of us the tax payer, where were his line managers ensuring he was working for the good of the IOM?

Not fit for purpose springs to mind, but hey ho it’s us Tax Payers that pay for some of these lunatics that work for the IOM Government.

As a point of clarity not all Civil Servants are like this deluded individual.

LT

What point are you making?

[Jarndyce]

39 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

As a point of clarity not all Civil Servants are like this deluded individual.

LT

Are you, by any chance, a Civil Servant?

[John Wright]

7 hours ago, Last Ten said:

The problem lies directly in the IOM Civil Service, this bloke will have spent lots of his time at work conjuring up issues when he should have been actually working on behalf of us the tax payer, where were his line managers ensuring he was working for the good of the IOM?

 

6 hours ago, 2112 said:

Very costly exercise. Assuming he had a lawyer? 

 

1 hour ago, Dirty Buggane said:

No doubt payed for by us.

1. He was self representing throughout.

2. An inordinate amount of management and HR time was spent over a decade dealing with complaints, under performance, disputes with fellow workers.

Source is the original decision in 2022 and the current May 2024 decision.

[Non-Believer]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

2. An inordinate amount of management and HR time was spent over a decade dealing with complaints, under performance, disputes with fellow workers.

Source is the original decision in 2022 and the current May 2024 decision.

In which case it could have been identified much earlier and he could have been managed out, as would have been almost certain in the private sector.

Were it not for HR inertia and cast iron CS T&Cs which make it virtually impossible to empty such cases.

[Steve_Christian]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

In which case it could have been identified much earlier and he could have been managed out, as would have been almost certain in the private sector.

Were it not for HR inertia and cast iron CS T&Cs which make it virtually impossible to empty such cases.

It’s interesting this thread - as much as I agree with the above, if we compare our employment law to that in France or Luxembourg, almost all of the rights sit with the worker as opposed to the employer and it’s very difficult (and expensive) to ‘manage someone out’ or fire someone. Our employment law does allow for the employer to terminate employment much more easily in comparison but of course it takes both competent HR and joined up management - and I think, most importantly, strong leadership to properly manage under-performers. I think a lot of employers struggle with these 3 elements although it’s probably worse in the public sector. 

[Sheldon]

Self-representation is a fairly common muppetry red flag. It can mean they've been told by lawyer after lawyer that they don’t have a case, but plough on anyway. 

I suspect it often starts out as a naked money grab, but as matters progress they actually convince themselves that there’s some dark conspiracy against them, because they can’t possibly be in the wrong. 

[P.K.]

The Peter Principle would appear to be absolutely thriving in IOMG.

[Jarndyce]

6 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

Self-representation is a fairly common muppetry red flag. It can mean they've been told by lawyer after lawyer that they don’t have a case, but plough on anyway. 

I suspect it often starts out as a naked money grab, but as matters progress they actually convince themselves that there’s some dark conspiracy against them, because they can’t possibly be in the wrong.

Indeed - I can think of two examples off the top of my head, present case excepted.

[The Maverick]

19 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

Self-representation is a fairly common muppetry red flag. It can mean they've been told by lawyer after lawyer that they don’t have a case, but plough on anyway. 

Nail on head with this one. Likely told by a lawyer that he doesn’t have a leg to stand on but as he’s unlikely to have been re employed probably now has a lot of time on his hands to be a complete pain in the ass a la Trevor Cowin. It is about time they started hitting these sort of chancers with costs to shut them down as they seem to think that their free ride on the taxpayer should extend to being paid compensation by the taxpayer too by claiming stress / bullying / whistle blowing or anything else after the event to get a few quid. 

[Happier diner]

4 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

Are you, by any chance, a Civil Servant?

No. I am not. I genuinely am not sure what point he is making. That's why I asked.

[Sheldon]

2 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

Indeed - I can think of two examples off the top of my head, present case excepted.

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

No. I am not. I genuinely am not sure what point he is making. That's why I asked.

It’s definitely not just confined to the civil service. 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Sheldon said:

Self-representation is a fairly common muppetry red flag. It can mean they've been told by lawyer after lawyer that they don’t have a case, but plough on anyway. 

You're wrong in the case of Employment Tribunals at least.  The employee or ex-employee is almost always self-represented because legal aid can't be obtained for such a process and the winning side can't usually claim against the losing one for legal fees.  If you look through recent judgements this is nearly always the case.  It's only if you're wealthy or well-connected or have the support of a Union or professional body that there will be lawyers involved on your side (Ranson was fortunate enough to be all three).

To some extent this is deliberately part of the system.  The ideal is that both employer and employee represent themselves and the Tribunal adjudicates quickly and as informally as possible.  That works with small companies and you'll see various cases there where the employer has been represented by a director of the company and the employee by themself.  But with big corporations and especially the government there's a problem of 'inequality of arms' where an individual is up against specialist lawyers.