No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2037
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby SA_SA_SA » 19 Aug 2015, 12:45pm

TonyR wrote:.... Current employment law is all about the role not the person. You might think it would be simple to make a newer member of staff redundant so that the long serving member could retain a role in the company. But you can only make a role redundant, not the person, so when that newer member is made redundant its because their role has gone. And because its gone you cannot recreate it or refill it because that would mean the role was not redundant and would make the person's redundancy illegal. The only other ways to create a vacancy is if the person commits gross misconduct or they have been through a long sequence of performance management that has not worked or they decide to leave of their own volition.

Perversely, in this context, the law is there to protect newer members of staff being disadvantaged relative to long timers when redundancies are needed by making the process blind to the person in the role and focusing only on the role.


How can this work?
A company employing a software engineer finds that part of their work dries up so make them/the post redundant: later work picks up, they need a software engineer again: they can't employ a software engineer ever again? The CTC can't ever have a Technical Officer again because of the current CEO letting the current Technical Officer go?
And a better future CTC CEO can't in future reinstate a Technical <some other name meaning the same thing as Officer> ?


TonyR wrote:.....but the law is designed to prevent such people getting preferential treatment where redundancies are involved.

Surely such rules should only apply to multiple people in the same job ie lots of Software Engineers in a Software House? There was only one Technical Officer.

Also, surely the CTC cannot claim to have been be that skint: they followed the removal of the Technical Officer with the employment of a 'Communications Officer' and others. I suggest some members, like me, would have preferred a Technical Officer over a 'Communications Officer' .
Also, CJ had offered to work 'part-time/as a consultancy'-ish also covering Touring, which would have saved money .

TonyR wrote:..... Lots of people here wanted a long serving liked employee to be kept on but the law is designed to prevent such people getting preferential treatment where redundancies are involved.

I think that is an unfair guess at/representation of others thinking: I think you could just as easily say those people wanted a Technical Officer, but recognised that CJ was a very good one, who did a lot more than just answer Q&A letters(eg safety/lighting legislation etc).
Also, there was no announcement or discussion before removing a membership benefit. The members should have been asked or why be a member of the CTC?
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby Psamathe » 19 Aug 2015, 2:10pm

SA_SA_SA wrote:
TonyR wrote:.... Current employment law is all about the role not the person. You might think it would be simple to make a newer member of staff redundant so that the long serving member could retain a role in the company. But you can only make a role redundant, not the person, so when that newer member is made redundant its because their role has gone. And because its gone you cannot recreate it or refill it because that would mean the role was not redundant and would make the person's redundancy illegal. The only other ways to create a vacancy is if the person commits gross misconduct or they have been through a long sequence of performance management that has not worked or they decide to leave of their own volition.

Perversely, in this context, the law is there to protect newer members of staff being disadvantaged relative to long timers when redundancies are needed by making the process blind to the person in the role and focusing only on the role.


How can this work?
A company employing a software engineer finds that part of their work dries up so make them/the post redundant: later work picks up, they need a software engineer again: they can't employ a software engineer ever again? The CTC can't ever have a Technical Officer again because of the current CEO letting the current Technical Officer go? ...

I believe that for a period of time after making a role redundant, if they re-instate the role they are legally obliged to offer it to the previous employee. I seem to recall the time being around 18 months but I'm uncertain and things may have changed.

Of course there are complications e.g. make the role of Programmer redundant when held by somebody at a senior level, then a few months later create a role of Junior Programmer at much lower pay but with substantially the same duties. I would imagine it is the duties and job description that is most important but then it is easy to express responsibilities differently for the same task.

Ian

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14164
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby gaz » 19 Sep 2015, 10:09pm

Chris Jeggo wrote:... Once again Chris Juden has not been thanked for 31 years exemplary service. ...

CJ has been put forward for an honourary membership award: http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/awards-honours

Web page was last updated 18 Sep 2015 at 09:26, I believe with details of the honourary membership awards.

(Chance find whilst looking for something else. It could have been in Friday's Cycle Clips which I choose not to receive. I understand Oct/Nov Cycle starts hitting doormats on Monday, I'm not aware whether this gets a mention.)
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

JohnW
Posts: 6450
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby JohnW » 20 Sep 2015, 9:41am

gaz wrote:.................CJ has been put forward for an honourary membership award: http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/awards-honours


(...............I understand Oct/Nov Cycle starts hitting doormats on Monday, I'm not aware whether this gets a mention.)


QUOTE FROM THE WEB-PAGE THAT GAZ REFERS TO :
"Honorary Membership
Awarded to those outside of the Club for promoting cycling within their field. These are awarded yearly and subject to annual renewal.
Those put forward for honorary membership awards in 2015 are:
Ruth Cadbury, MP
Chris Froom
Julian Huppert
Chris Juden
​Sarah Wollaston, MP
All of the ‘All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’ (for their duration in the group)"

I would hardly refer to CJ as being "outside the Club"

Personally, I think that an award is eminently appropriate, and the least that the Club should be doing.............But I can't support a reference to CJ as an "outsider".

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby TonyR » 20 Sep 2015, 11:08am

JohnW wrote:But I can't support a reference to CJ as an "outsider".


Well, if he's not currently a member or employee he is by definition, an outsider. I suspect employees do not typically have memberships so the first category it out. He is not a volunteer so the second category is out. So we are left with the third category for people outside the club who have made outstanding contributions which I think is by far the most appropriate category.

JohnW
Posts: 6450
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby JohnW » 20 Sep 2015, 3:37pm

TonyR wrote:
JohnW wrote:But I can't support a reference to CJ as an "outsider".


Well, if he's not currently a member or employee he is by definition, an outsider. I suspect employees do not typically have memberships so the first category it out. He is not a volunteer so the second category is out. So we are left with the third category for people outside the club who have made outstanding contributions which I think is by far the most appropriate category.


Tony - I've read your posts earlier (a lot earlier) on this thread, and noted your view of the high priority of campaigning - and you'll see from my posts on another thread that I share your view on that matter - absolutely. However, if there's a view that campaigning/technical support should be an either/or choice, then this member doesn't support it - that's just me - I'm not attempting to tell other people what to think.

If CJ isn't/wasn't a member then I suppose that technically, within the narrow confines of a dictionary definition, you may be right..................but Tony, CJ was an insider - he was one of us, always approachable, always ready to give researched, learned, fair and unbiased advice and technical decisions, and he's served the club and us faithfully and loyally down the years.
I maintain the view that Chris Juden has not been well treated recently by the CTC, and I maintain the view that after over 30 years as CTC's Technical Officer he's not, whether formally a member or not, an 'outsider'.

I repeat and support my stance that CJ is not, repeat not, an 'outsider'.

However, if this is the best that CTC can do for him, then "outstanding contribution" is indeed well deserved.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby TonyR » 20 Sep 2015, 7:28pm

JohnW wrote:Tony - I've read your posts earlier (a lot earlier) on this thread, and noted your view of the high priority of campaigning - and you'll see from my posts on another thread that I share your view on that matter - absolutely. However, if there's a view that campaigning/technical support should be an either/or choice, then this member doesn't support it - that's just me - I'm not attempting to tell other people what to think.


I don't think we are far apart. I just choose to believe the CTC when they said that there was no longer any demand for technical support, you choose not to. If they are right then it is only right that the budget be moved onto other things. It would have been nice is CJ could have been moved to another role, had he wanted it, but if they were having to reduce the headcount then modern employment law makes favouritism like that very difficult if not illegal.

I repeat and support my stance that CJ is not, repeat not, an 'outsider'.


It was you that coined the term "outsider" for him. The CTC refers just to awards which are restricted to those "outside of the club" That is simply a statement of fact and only starts to adopt more of the "not one of us" overtones you seem to be objecting to when its changed to outsider.

OED:
Outside: The position or area adjacent to and beyond the outer side or surface of something

Outsider: A person who does not belong to a particular circle, community, profession, etc

JohnW
Posts: 6450
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby JohnW » 20 Sep 2015, 9:05pm

Tony - no, we're not far apart in our perception.

I did use the term 'outsider', and it does have a different ring to it from merely 'outside' but whatever, CJ has been an integral part of CTC for all those years and the word 'outside' doesn't ring true with reference to him.

If you trawl through all the above - and there's a lot of it - you'll see that Chris did offer to take on an additional role(s) within CTC, but it wasn't accepted and now they tell us that there'll still be technical advice. I predict that it won't be up to Chris's standard.

Anyway, what is, is and that's that.

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby Psamathe » 21 Sep 2015, 12:34pm

TonyR wrote:
JohnW wrote:Tony - I've read your posts earlier (a lot earlier) on this thread, and noted your view of the high priority of campaigning - and you'll see from my posts on another thread that I share your view on that matter - absolutely. However, if there's a view that campaigning/technical support should be an either/or choice, then this member doesn't support it - that's just me - I'm not attempting to tell other people what to think.


I don't think we are far apart. I just choose to believe the CTC when they said that there was no longer any demand for technical support, you choose not to....

I think there was more going on that just demand for technical support from the membership. Remember:
CJ wrote:I offered to negotiate terms for early retirement, as that would surely play better with the members, but nothing doing.

I also offered to provide a reduced combined touring and technical consultancy service, but they wouldn't even consider that.

So CTC had the option to handle this better from the perspective of the membership or to reduce the membership technical support issues and to take on CJ as a consultant serving a broader role and according to reports they would not really consider this. It looks more like somebody at the top wanted him out. And is only now starting to appreciate that maybe they got it wrong but they've dug their hole and jumped-in.

Ian

JohnW
Posts: 6450
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby JohnW » 21 Sep 2015, 2:02pm

Psamathe wrote:..............Remember:
CJ wrote:.....I offered to negotiate terms for early retirement, as that would surely play better with the members, but nothing doing.

I also offered to provide a reduced combined touring and technical consultancy service, but they wouldn't even consider that.

So CTC had the option to handle this better.............
Ian


Absolutely so. That's what I said in my last previous post.

LollyKat
Posts: 3031
Joined: 28 May 2011, 11:25pm
Location: Scotland

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby LollyKat » 21 Sep 2015, 3:22pm

The most disgraceful, not to say telling aspect of this whole sorry story is that in Cycle there has been not a single expression of thanks from NO for all CJ's fantastic work over c.30 years.

Surely not the way to treat the staff member most valued by the club membership for all that time?

:(

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby Psamathe » 21 Sep 2015, 3:54pm

LollyKat wrote:The most disgraceful, not to say telling aspect of this whole sorry story is that in Cycle there has been not a single expression of thanks from NO for all CJ's fantastic work over c.30 years.

Surely not the way to treat the staff member most valued by the club membership for all that time?

:(

New regime. It seems to be how things work under the "new management"

Ian

User avatar
robgul
Posts: 3017
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 8:40pm
Contact:

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby robgul » 21 Sep 2015, 4:18pm

Psamathe wrote:
LollyKat wrote:The most disgraceful, not to say telling aspect of this whole sorry story is that in Cycle there has been not a single expression of thanks from NO for all CJ's fantastic work over c.30 years.

Surely not the way to treat the staff member most valued by the club membership for all that time?

:(

New regime. It seems to be how things work under the "new management"

Ian


I think "regime" is a better word than "management" from what I can see .....

Rob
E2E http://www.cycle-endtoend.org.uk
HoECC http://www.heartofenglandcyclingclub.org.uk
Cytech accredited mechanic . . . and woodworker

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14164
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby gaz » 28 Sep 2015, 8:37pm

gaz wrote:... I understand Oct/Nov Cycle starts hitting doormats on Monday, I'm not aware whether this gets a mention. ...


Oct/Nov 2015 Cycle, p10.

... Amongst our new honorary members are former CTC Technical Officer Chris Juden for his long and distinguished service to the charity ...
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

fatboy
Posts: 3456
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: No more CTC technical officer ** NO HOAX **

Postby fatboy » 4 Oct 2015, 4:26pm

I see that obviously less people are sending in technical questions such that they are resorting to nicking questions from the forum (one of mine included). I'm not sure how I feel about this. I got a good answer but not from where I asked for it.

What does anyone else thuink?
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly