to be unforgiving of my employees?

[PigletJohn]

With some other people, I own a share of an organisation. I recently discovered that one of the managers fiddled £45,000 on her expenses. She's offered to pay £5,000 back. Her basic salary is £141,000 but she gets perks on top.

I say we should sack her at once, but her colleagues say that she's apologised so we should forget about it.

I don't think the other owners are too pleased either. Should we do what the other managers say, or are they just saying that because some of them have been fiddling their expenses as well?

diane,

surely we need some honest managers. Why would we want to employ dishonest people?

Feel very stoopid! This is about our 'esteemed' culture secretary not your own company.

I wondered why you were answering to the managers!

Sadly, us mere minions do not have the right to hire and fire....

Oh, well at least they 'let' us award them another payrise next year when the 'crapola' civil servants remain on a pay freeze.

not "my" own company.

but it is ours.

Aww, some people are such meanies. She's said she's sorry. Surely that's enough? She must be burdened with worry about how to invest all that money she made from selling her house, too. Leave her alone, poor thing.

yes poor thing she said sorry

now if it was £45,000 of BENEFITS well I'd say public flogging was too good for her but it's not like she was embezzling tax payers money ...

oh wait, hang on!

That is serious fraud- no way should she get away with it on the basis of an apology. I think you should take legal advice.

Anybody would think there's one rule for them and another rule for us. But that can't be right, Dave told us we're all in it together. I'm confused.

Oops! Need to rtft before commenting!

Sack the employee and the manager!

Jump ship and leave this goddam island!

I'm not sure prison is the right answer for these crooks

I have had some experience of this particular manager when she worked in a slightly different capacity. I'm not saying that she was tight, you understand. However, she didn't carry any money (or said that she didn't) and expected somebody else to buy coffees for her and her PA. Also, the employees of the organisation the manager was visiting were instructed not to look at her, or address her.

The worst thing about this affair is the way in which she determinedly tried to wriggle out of answering questions about her financial conduct. She tried everything, including trying to set her solicitors on the parliamentary standards committee. It's shameful. Do you think she'll be claiming her legal fees as part of her parliamentary expenses?

Yes me too Ruby

PigletJohn your thread is at risk of being derailed - can we have some more facts please?

Over how long did the fraud go on - what type if expenses? Are there any other background facts or is it as bald as you have presented it? (In which case of course she should be sacked and reported to the police)

Also - unless it happened over a v short period of time, how could that huge sum be defrauded, were there but proper precautions in place to prevent this? Not for a minute suggesting she's anything other than 100% culpable but more info would be good

lol

I missed the point entirely.... Slopes off to get more vino

PG I shall retire at once

some more facts

hanette I think your questions were very pertinent

Am slinking off to The Litter Tray where I belong!

Wow that makes for some interesting reading.

I like your style piglet. Vive la revolution! Just off to get my knitting.

The responses of posters who haven't made the connection are very telling.

Typical of people in power irrespective of colour of persuasion.

Should be sacked and should have all gains taken of her the same as current criminals do.

This won't happen (again not because of the colour of there political stance).....

So meh ...

page 71

"147. If my arguments are accepted, Mrs Miller could properly have claimed just over £27,000 for mortgage interest, and just over £6,000 for council tax: a total of £33,500 under these two headings, as opposed to the £77,665.83 which she did claim. She should have reduced her
council tax claim by around £1,000 to take account of her parents’ presence in the household, and her mortgage interest claim by approximately £43,000 to take account of the extensions to her mortgage as well as her parents’ presence in the household: a total reduction of around
£44,000.94"

page 73
"I have not been able to discuss some of the detail in relation to the abatement and mortgage issues with Mrs Miller because of her insistence that I had no remit to investigate them."

writes the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

local comment from her constituents