Post by Long Gone on Oct 30, 2015 13:10:11 GMT
When I was there you saw it all the time, the overwhelming desire on the part of managers (goaded on by HR) to actively seek out and punish every misdemeanour they could possibly find or even invent. During the post 2004 period especially I saw this occuring in my area and others. Amongst other things someone I knew got into trouble for was "being too helpful to the business", claiming for agreed overtime (apparantly his exalted rank of 'P' implied that he should not make such claims) and taking a break "out of core hours" which were suposed not to exist anyway. I actually even heard him being taken to task for what he ate for breakfast which having been deemed unhealthy might have had an impact on his work.
And it wasnt just my local management either. One senior manager was in the habit of thrusting his face close into that of others. I thought the poor sod was just very short sighted but no. I was later told that he did so to see if he could force the other person to retreat! Even more peculiar than that, I was told this by someone who seemed to think that this was/should be normal management practice.
Outside of where I worked there were other examples too. One rather naive individual tried to use a memory stick so he could take some work home. When this was discovered he was hauled into a room some thugs from HR who shouted and screamed at him, reducing him to a sobbing mess. Had he not been disabled I daresay he would have been sacked on the spot. HR do love to be politically correct, especially as it can be another good tool with which to beat people with.
More generally, management's/HR's weapon of choice against people was "Internet abuse". What this was was never defined. We all had unlimited access to the internet which was never controlled and was only partially websensed. So was 15 minutes a day acceptable or 30? What if use was limited to lunch breaks was that ok? No-one would define this.... and for a very good reason...
It is expensive to make someone redundant, it is difficult to dismiss someone for being a bit slow, or for a poor sickness record, or because they are pregnant or disabled or even just because the manager doesnt like them but for "Internet abuse" it is very straightforward. As the crime hasnt been defined in terms of time or content almost any website visited or time spent browsing can be considered a sackable offence. I know af several people who have been terminated in this way.
And then there is "email abuse". One lady with 35 years service received an external email from a friend. Unfortunately it contained an attachment which could have been regarded as pornographic. On seeing this she panicked and forwarded it to her home email account. With 35 years blameless service this matter should have been dealt with by a slap on the wrist. Afterall she hadnt initiated the email exchange and had never had disciplinary issues before. In fact this was precisely how her manager wished to proceed but wasnt allowed to. HR insisted on her summary dismissal instead and at L&G, HR has the whip hand over local line management every time.
So who are these HR monkeys and what motivates them? And why considering there is a union at Legal and General can they get away with it?
Here is a clue. The following is cut and pasted from the linkedin profile of a former L&G HR manager bigging up his cv......
·Major group grievance resulting in summary dismissals and won subsequent tribunal
·Consultation with Union (AMICUS) on a unique partnership basis
The first bullet is a reference to a particularly nasty disciplinary action which would take a while to go into. There is a much earlier thread on this site called 'BTS rises to the challenge' which explains it fully and in an highly entertaining manner.
The point to be made here is that he clearly regards the punishment of people as one of his core responsibilities and something to be boasted about. Hilariously however the fact that it went to a tribunal at all rather undermines his acheivement. Tribunals only accept cases where there is a strong case to be heard. Incidentally the court case cost the company £500 000 in legal fees. The tribunal pointedly did not award costs agianst the former employees. Less of an "achievement" than he thinks then.
The second bullet (which may well have been linked in his mind to the first) is really revealing because what has to be understood is that the Unite union at L&G (formerly Amicus) is completely in the pocket of the company.
consider this. You are a deputy team leader in a lowly clerical area in Hove. Suddenly, through your union work you are made a full time seconded rep. You go from answering phone calls from customers to hobnobbing with very senior management, company directors and are party to privaliged information. Your considerably enhanced wages are paid for by the company not the union. At business meetings and quite often socially you mix with HR. Are you going to rock the boat? Are you going to risk a return to where you came from or a lengthy stay in your comfy new role followed by a cushy sinecure of a job in HR? Better people than the current incumbant have been corrupted in this way.
Far from being workplace protection for its employees, the union is in fact the provisional wing of HR. Its main job is to sheild the company from criticism. At the infamous tribunal mentioned above, L&G's lawyers more than once used the fact that the union had refused to help its members as evidence that they were in the wrong. The union leadership too actively prevented radical action being taken by union members at the time that IT was being outsourced. It used its meetings with us as forum for us to let off steam whilst they told us how much progress they were making with management due to thier wonderful "partnership agreement".
It was all phoney of course....Management conceded nothing other than Unite's continuing right to represent us! I even got the impression they rather approved of the outsource to an Indian company. Payback for Empire you see....
HR is everywhere populated by potential bullies, the very role attracts such people in the same way they are drawn to being security guards or parking wardens. Usually they come across as serial underachievers who can only really shine in an environment governed by strict processess and rules which doesnt require initiative, intellegence or empathy. What seems to mark Legal and General out from other companies I have worked at is that at L&G these people are inot just an irritating ancillery department but are instead actually running the show.
To anyone out there still working at the company I would say please take care and remember there are much better places to be.
And it wasnt just my local management either. One senior manager was in the habit of thrusting his face close into that of others. I thought the poor sod was just very short sighted but no. I was later told that he did so to see if he could force the other person to retreat! Even more peculiar than that, I was told this by someone who seemed to think that this was/should be normal management practice.
Outside of where I worked there were other examples too. One rather naive individual tried to use a memory stick so he could take some work home. When this was discovered he was hauled into a room some thugs from HR who shouted and screamed at him, reducing him to a sobbing mess. Had he not been disabled I daresay he would have been sacked on the spot. HR do love to be politically correct, especially as it can be another good tool with which to beat people with.
More generally, management's/HR's weapon of choice against people was "Internet abuse". What this was was never defined. We all had unlimited access to the internet which was never controlled and was only partially websensed. So was 15 minutes a day acceptable or 30? What if use was limited to lunch breaks was that ok? No-one would define this.... and for a very good reason...
It is expensive to make someone redundant, it is difficult to dismiss someone for being a bit slow, or for a poor sickness record, or because they are pregnant or disabled or even just because the manager doesnt like them but for "Internet abuse" it is very straightforward. As the crime hasnt been defined in terms of time or content almost any website visited or time spent browsing can be considered a sackable offence. I know af several people who have been terminated in this way.
And then there is "email abuse". One lady with 35 years service received an external email from a friend. Unfortunately it contained an attachment which could have been regarded as pornographic. On seeing this she panicked and forwarded it to her home email account. With 35 years blameless service this matter should have been dealt with by a slap on the wrist. Afterall she hadnt initiated the email exchange and had never had disciplinary issues before. In fact this was precisely how her manager wished to proceed but wasnt allowed to. HR insisted on her summary dismissal instead and at L&G, HR has the whip hand over local line management every time.
So who are these HR monkeys and what motivates them? And why considering there is a union at Legal and General can they get away with it?
Here is a clue. The following is cut and pasted from the linkedin profile of a former L&G HR manager bigging up his cv......
·Major group grievance resulting in summary dismissals and won subsequent tribunal
·Consultation with Union (AMICUS) on a unique partnership basis
The first bullet is a reference to a particularly nasty disciplinary action which would take a while to go into. There is a much earlier thread on this site called 'BTS rises to the challenge' which explains it fully and in an highly entertaining manner.
The point to be made here is that he clearly regards the punishment of people as one of his core responsibilities and something to be boasted about. Hilariously however the fact that it went to a tribunal at all rather undermines his acheivement. Tribunals only accept cases where there is a strong case to be heard. Incidentally the court case cost the company £500 000 in legal fees. The tribunal pointedly did not award costs agianst the former employees. Less of an "achievement" than he thinks then.
The second bullet (which may well have been linked in his mind to the first) is really revealing because what has to be understood is that the Unite union at L&G (formerly Amicus) is completely in the pocket of the company.
consider this. You are a deputy team leader in a lowly clerical area in Hove. Suddenly, through your union work you are made a full time seconded rep. You go from answering phone calls from customers to hobnobbing with very senior management, company directors and are party to privaliged information. Your considerably enhanced wages are paid for by the company not the union. At business meetings and quite often socially you mix with HR. Are you going to rock the boat? Are you going to risk a return to where you came from or a lengthy stay in your comfy new role followed by a cushy sinecure of a job in HR? Better people than the current incumbant have been corrupted in this way.
Far from being workplace protection for its employees, the union is in fact the provisional wing of HR. Its main job is to sheild the company from criticism. At the infamous tribunal mentioned above, L&G's lawyers more than once used the fact that the union had refused to help its members as evidence that they were in the wrong. The union leadership too actively prevented radical action being taken by union members at the time that IT was being outsourced. It used its meetings with us as forum for us to let off steam whilst they told us how much progress they were making with management due to thier wonderful "partnership agreement".
It was all phoney of course....Management conceded nothing other than Unite's continuing right to represent us! I even got the impression they rather approved of the outsource to an Indian company. Payback for Empire you see....
HR is everywhere populated by potential bullies, the very role attracts such people in the same way they are drawn to being security guards or parking wardens. Usually they come across as serial underachievers who can only really shine in an environment governed by strict processess and rules which doesnt require initiative, intellegence or empathy. What seems to mark Legal and General out from other companies I have worked at is that at L&G these people are inot just an irritating ancillery department but are instead actually running the show.
To anyone out there still working at the company I would say please take care and remember there are much better places to be.