how to get a big bonus (like bankers) as a social worker

(43 Posts)
mirtzapine Sat 02-Nov-13 18:53:02
oldgrandmama Sat 02-Nov-13 18:55:33

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Leverette Sat 02-Nov-13 18:57:49

Sharon Shoesmith was found by the tribunal court to have been unfairly dismissed. The fact that the local authority she worked for couldn't manage a straightforward disciplinary issue effectively and lawfully speaks volumes about their competence at managing complex child protection scenarios.

mirtzapine Sat 02-Nov-13 18:58:06

national disgrace (among many others)

KeepingUpWithTheJonses Sat 02-Nov-13 18:58:33

What's your point?

KeepingUpWithTheJonses Sat 02-Nov-13 18:59:04

Also, what have bankers got to do with it?

Salbertina Sat 02-Nov-13 19:00:07

She also wasn't in a social work role but as chief exec of large authority was managing multi-million budget and huge team.

bittapitta Sat 02-Nov-13 19:02:26

How is this an AIBU? Can you write a sentence or two to make your point OP? I don't understand your thread title.

WestmorlandFireSausage Sat 02-Nov-13 19:11:00

I will say what I always say on threads like these.

Unless you are prepared to go and get your hands dirty dealing with society's ills then don't judge those that do without considering what it is like to actually do those jobs with one hand tied behind your back and no money.

No one goes into social work (or any public service)to get rich. Unlike bankers whose only purpose is to get rich.

GiveItYourBestFucker Sat 02-Nov-13 19:13:46

One of the judges pointed out that the minimum compensation here would have been three months salary plus pension contributions - about 33k. leverette is wasn't Haringey's fault, Ed Balls insisted she be sacked.

GiveItYourBestFucker Sat 02-Nov-13 19:15:41

She wasn't Chief Exec of Haringey Council, she was Head of Childrens Services.

gordyslovesheep Sat 02-Nov-13 19:19:43

I don't get your point - sorry - she won a her case and was awarded damages

WereTricksPotter Sat 02-Nov-13 19:26:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

paxtecum Sat 02-Nov-13 19:27:29

Well said, Westmorland.

hermioneweasley Sat 02-Nov-13 19:35:28

It's an extraordinary award. Tribunals have the power to reduce compensation in unfair dismissal cases in the event that there is a fair reason for dismissal, but the procedure was technically unfair. In this scenarion, if the claimant has contributed to their dismissal, or the tribunal believes that a fair dismissal could have been achieved, they can reduce compensation accordingly. So assuming that there was a fair reason - gross negligence and/or total breakdown in confidence of service users then the issue was she was dismissed with no proceedure. That woukd have taken a few weeks at most, so I would have awarded a couple of weeks pay compensation, and not (what appears to be) several years' pay.

I can only assume the Council had utterly crap legal representation.

MsHighwater Sat 02-Nov-13 19:39:29

It's important that disciplinary proceedings are handled well, for people who are paid large salaries just as much as the lower paid. However, most people who are unfairly dismissed aren't plastered across every tabloid in the land and almost held as much (if not more) responsible for the child's death than the people who actually caused his death.
I imagine that was factored in to the calculation of damages.

edam Sat 02-Nov-13 19:40:55

They should have dismissed her properly following correct procedures. However, it does seem unfair that she gets such a huge award. Ordinary people who fuck up badly at work don't walk away with £600k pay-offs.

Sharon Shoesmith ran a terrible department. She was not a social worker and doesn't seem to have taken much interest in social work - her background was in education.

Her reaction to poor Peter Connolly's death was appalling. She refused to take any blame, and tried to cover up the massive failings in her department, commissioning a report that was entirely misconceived. She should have been facing proper procedures for gross misconduct. Shame the council and the government fucked it up quite so badly.

Morloth Sat 02-Nov-13 19:42:47

They hung her out to dry.

There are rules around firibg someone.

Those rules protect you as well.

ILetHimKeep20Quid Sat 02-Nov-13 19:45:32

You have no point.

littlewhitebag Sat 02-Nov-13 20:02:57

It is hardly a bonus is it? I am a SW and it is insulting to suggest that I might look for a large pay off.

hermioneweasley Sat 02-Nov-13 20:11:37

Ms Highwater, comp for unfair dismissal does not include damages for reputation, injury to feelings etc. there is a basic award for being unfairly dismissed, and then comp for loss of earnings up to date of hearing and likely future loss of earnings. The press interest in the case should have no bearing on the compensation calc.

Welshwabbit Sat 02-Nov-13 20:20:49

The payment to Sharon Shoesmith is not a court award, it is compensation agreed by the council following her successful judicial review application. The reports I've seen suggest that the total cost to the council could be up to £600K - I'm not sure whether that's just her case or others involved too - but emphasise that the amount she will receive will be lower (it isn't clear how much lower). Her claim was not for unfair dismissal (which does have all the mechanisms referred to by hermioneweasley to reduce damages in cases of procedural unfairness) but for judicial review primarily of Ed Balls' instruction to the council to sack her without following procedure, and also of the council for following his instruction. The only reason she has been able to make this claim is because Ed Balls screwed up so royally; if he had just left the council to follow its own procedures, she probably wouldn't have had any claim, and even if she did it would likely only have been for procedural unfairness within an unfair dismissal claim, with capped compensation.

So I can see why everyone's annoyed, but really they should be annoyed with Ed Balls, because this is all his fault.

Altinkum Sat 02-Nov-13 20:24:26

So you've put peters death and money together and came up with that conclusion, what a insightful OP you have made hmm

hermioneweasley Sat 02-Nov-13 20:26:59

WelshWabbit, thanks for that, obviously I didn't realise. Yes, Ed Balls really ballsed up in that case.

edam Sat 02-Nov-13 20:33:42

To be fair to Ed Balls, though, Haringey council was entirely ineffectual and would have quite happily carried on employing shoesmith to run a shit dept. Judging by their record.

I'm quite prepared to believe it is the bosses who are shit, and run a terrible department, that may well rely on a high number of agency workers and carry lots of vacancies, rather than assume all Haringey SWs are bad people, btw.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now