On 3 Jun, 15:24, John B wrote:
On 3 Jun, 13:54, wrote:

Just think of the many thousands in compensation his solicitor will
negotiate for him. *Six figures I would expect (just look at Andrew
Lazala).

No, because Brian was sacked for a gross breach of his employment
rules, whereas Lazala was sacked because Metronet had underperformed.

As any employer will tell you, it's a lot easier to sack someone for
gross misconduct than gross incompetence.


Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Jonn

wrote:


Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.


By your own logic, everyone who'd never been promoted would still have a
job.

Tom

On 3 Jun, 16:15, Tom Barry wrote:
Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

By your own logic, everyone who'd never been promoted would still have a
job.

Surely the reason they've never been promoted, according to the Peter
Principle, is that they've already reached their level of
incompetence?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 3 Jun, 16:12, wrote:
Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.

On 3 Jun, 17:46, Chris wrote:
On 3 Jun, 16:12, wrote:

Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.

Brian Cooke did, Andrew Lazala didn't. That's why the former was fired
and the latter was paid off.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 3 Jun, 17:56, John B wrote:
On 3 Jun, 17:46, Chris wrote:

On 3 Jun, 16:12, wrote:

Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.

Brian Cooke did, Andrew Lazala didn't. That's why the former was fired
and the latter was paid off.


Quite. Dismissing someone for not being very good isn't easy - "I
wasn't very good because my manager wasn't very good / my instructions
and guidance weren't very good / my underlings weren't very good / the
whole company isn't very good", though of course said person isn't
likely to admit they weren't very good in the first place.

That's not to say that I think it's at all right that departing execs
like Mr Lazala get these massive pay-outs when they and/or their
organisation has been performing shabbily. But then again I can't
really comprehend the logic whereby some corporate execs receive an
annual salary of millions. 'Tis a mad world. Unless John B can
persuade me otherwise?

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

On 3 Jun, 17:56, John B wrote:
On 3 Jun, 17:46, Chris wrote:

On 3 Jun, 16:12, wrote:

Well, yes. If we take the Peter Principle as accurate, then in a world
which could sack anyone just because they were grossly incompetent,
then almost noone would have a job.

Well definitely no, he broke the specific terms of his contract.

Brian Cooke did, Andrew Lazala didn't. That's why the former was fired
and the latter was paid off.


Quite. Dismissing someone for not being very good isn't easy - "I
wasn't very good because my manager wasn't very good / my instructions
and guidance weren't very good / my underlings weren't very good / the
whole company isn't very good", though of course said person isn't
likely to admit they weren't very good in the first place.

Which indeed they might not be but that doesn't always mean that they
are to blame for what has gone wrong. In some cases the question can
arise how/why someone allegedly incompetent was recruited and/or
placed in a position beyond their capabilities.

That's not to say that I think it's at all right that departing execs
like Mr Lazala get these massive pay-outs when they and/or their
organisation has been performing shabbily. But then again I can't
really comprehend the logic whereby some corporate execs receive an
annual salary of millions. 'Tis a mad world. Unless John B can
persuade me otherwise?