A Question for the EA

[No Regrets]

Dear EA representatives.

We keep hearing, from various sources, about the alleged 'gagging' of your employees.

Would any of you (And there are plenty of you watching this, wouldn't you agree?) be so kind as to comment on what happened to free speech, and in fact if these allegations are true?

Since when, has an employees opinion had a bearing on his employment rights, in a non-confidential occupation?

Now seriously, I'm not expecting a response of any consequence here, and the resultant tumbleweed blowing across the forum will serve no purpose other than highlight the total disregard to both your employers (The public) and Employees (The lockkeepers) that many forumites suspect.

Thank you for your consideration...

 

[angelaquayle]

I was going to post this under the earlier RUG thread but seeing as you've asked the question again:

Like any organisation, we (EA) have a code of conduct which all employees are expected to follow. The briefing below has been issued to ALL Thames Region staff (not just lockkeepers) to remind everyone what is expected of them when speaking on behalf of the organisation. All staff have to pass media enquiries on to our press office to deal with which is also common practice as, like the briefing says, you represent the whole organisation.

To pick up on the earlier thread about River User Group meetings - I got the sense that the meeting last night was seen as a meeting we were trying to hide so will say a little bit about RUGs. There are RUGs all along the river who meet a couple of times a year to discuss and co-ordinate river issues/events. The each differ in attendance and how they operate but they are for different types of river users to get together. We send representatives from the relevant area of the river to go along and listen to issues, answer questions and provide briefing on work we are doing. Last night was RUG 6. See more about RUGs at www.riverusergroups.co.uk.

Communicating Externally

There’ve recently been a number of queries received from employees regarding communicating with public groups, MP’s and other interested parties. The purpose of this note is to clarify the Environment Agency’s expectation of all employees regarding their interaction with the public.


All Environment Agency employees are perceived by the public as being the ‘face’ of the organisation and as such any statements which are made will be treated as having been made in this capacity. As Environment Agency employees it is crucial that the information given to members of the pubic or other bodies is factually correct and that we do not cause unnecessary concern to individuals or communities. Statements which are incorrect or misleading, which contradict Environment Agency policy or which inflame public opinion can be considered a breach of the trust and confidence which individual employees owe to the Agency. This is viewed as extremely serious and could result in disciplinary proceedings.


Subject to these limitations, employees are entitled to express their views on a variety of topics without running the risk of being dismissed, disciplined or victimised for doing so. There are appropriate policies and procedures in place for ensuring that employees have the right of redress if they feel that they are being unfairly treated.


As detailed in the Environment Agency’s Code of Conduct, we as an organisation expect all employees to uphold high standards of business conduct and behave consistently with their responsibilities and the Environment Agency’s values. The organisation expects its employees to sensibly judge what’s appropriate when communicating to external parties.

 

[apollo]

So far everything lockkeepers have told is me IS factually correct -

"the management have only hotelier degrees and have no understanding of how the river works, they are ruining the navigation".

Can see little so far to disprove that?

 

[No Regrets]

[ QUOTE ]
As detailed in the Environment Agency’s Code of Conduct, we as an organisation expect all employees to uphold high standards of business conduct

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to pick you up on one word here...

Do you consider the actions of the EA of 'HIGH' standard, considering the inevitable after effects of your proposals then?

And furthermore, have the EA considered mortgaging the said properties to raise capital, rather than actually selling them, on the basis ongoing rental revenue would pay the mortgages off?

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
There’ve recently been a number of queries received from employees regarding communicating with public groups, MP’s and other interested parties. The purpose of this note is to clarify the Environment Agency’s expectation of all employees regarding their interaction with the public.
>>>

I would hope that it was acceptable as an employee to speak to your MP about a concern. After all, that is, in essence, why you have an MP. In return they have rules on disclosure etc. The "public interest" and "whistleblower" arguments might be good too, ask anyone who was flooded last year.

 

[TrueBlue]

No, no,no -

[ QUOTE ]
As detailed in the Environment Agency’s Code of Conduct, we as an And furthermore, have the EA considered mortgaging the said properties to raise capital, rather than actually selling them, on the basis ongoing rental revenue would pay the mortgages off?

[/ QUOTE ]

No government, agency, department, whatever understands the difference between Capital and Income, as in "Capital is what you use to generate income". Everything is treated on a "now" basis - as in "I'm doing it now, asterisk next year".

So having funds of £x000,000 this year will earn them more brownie points than £x,000 of income for this year, and the next, and the next....

Anyway, get rid of houses,
staff leave,
New staff won't want to work for EA's pittance,
Staff shortage,
Oh, dear, can't recruit,
Sorry chaps you'll have to wind the locks yourself.

On a similar tack; sorry Your Majesty's Castle is flooded, ( /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif ) our staff no longer live near the weirs, and the team couldn't get there because the river is in flood - Elf'n Safety you understand.
Tough titty, Reading, Maidenhead, Windsor, we haven't got the funds.......

Overstatement?, I wonder.

 

[oldgit]

Re: No, no,no -

"our staff no longer live near the weirs"

Amazed that the Thames does not have automatic weir control,why so far behind,the technology has been in use for years elsewhere!

 

[TrueBlue]

Re: No, no,no -

[ QUOTE ]
"our staff no longer live near the weirs"

Amazed that the Thames does not have automatic weir control,why so far behind,the technology has been in use for years elsewhere!

[/ QUOTE ]

A source near to one of the locks that I frequent said (some time ago) that they had tried to automate him (haha), sorry his weirs but "they" couldn't get the beastly thing to work, so whoever still has to go to the head gear and push each start / stop button. Trouble is that the 'leccy often goes off, it's 3-phase so a standby genny costs more, and these new fangled gates are "impossible" to wind.