honesty wrote:Psamathe wrote:A very weak response. Does seem the organisation operates nothing like the private sector (yet they seem to require private sector salaries, compare they "packages" with those from the private sector).
And over a week for an "inquiry" like that is beyond disgraceful. When anybody is "out of the country" there should always be others to cover their responsibilities.
Weak? What did you expect, them to tar and feather the guy? They are still going through and internal disciplinary process and that could still lead to further punishment. Seems a reasonable response to me, even with the added irony of them sending a CTC top.
Also the timescale seems to be reasonable to me. Internal disciplinary procedures can be complex to follow correctly and can take time to follow therefore starting the process off has to be done correctly as well.
Weak, not in any punishment but in terms of result being an apology and a free sweater. From what I read the Officer is subject to an internal disciplinary procedure so that may not even have started (so not really part of the delay). And the outcome of such an Internal Disciplinary Procedure could range from taking an extra turn at providing the "sharing donuts" to gross misconduct - we have no idea what so my comment cannot have been commenting on any punishment. All the response says is "sorry and can we make this go away with a sweater (gratis)". That is weak.
Internal Disciplinary Procedures can be complex - but they don't need to be. In companies I've have director level responsibilities for anything like this would have been sorted next day. Delays only make the situation worse.
Organisations are lead from the top. If this is a mis-addressed e-mail, have there been loads of similar e-mails correctly addressed internally or is it complete coincidence that the one insulting one also happens to be the one mis-addressed one? Has this been investigated? Is it a "culture" within the department/organisation (meaning people feel it is acceptable to regard members who disagree with them in such a manner and to express that in writing)? Seems quite a few aspects that the response does not address - and hence my "weak" comment.