Is the RNLI getting to remote from its Raison d'être

[petem]

...I am sure the crew would turn up if the Maroons were launched....

You can't run a lifeboat station with just the hope that the crew would turn up. Either they're rostered for duty or they're not. I cannot see that the RNLI took this decision likely and I hope they manage to get the lifeboat back in service in Jersey before someone dies.

 

[MrB]

You can't run a lifeboat station with just the hope that the crew would turn up. Either they're rostered for duty or they're not. I cannot see that the RNLI took this decision likely and I hope they manage to get the lifeboat back in service in Jersey before someone dies.

I fully agree with this 100%. However, if i was the Cox'n I wouldn't let it drop until my name was cleared and I knew who had made the allegations in the first place ! It is a libel/slander case after all.

 

[MrB]

Not sure it's fair to extrapolate from your experience, nor that throwing one's teddy out of the pram to the extent that has gone on here is justified, particularly given the RNLI's apology.

Just read back on this. If you had been wrongly accused of something would you just let it drop or "Throw your teddy's out of the pram"? Would you want to know who your accuser was? :ambivalence:

 

[Sybarite]

There are a multitude of threads of scuttlebutt about the management of the RNLI mostly consisting of circular reputations of arguments and name-calling. There especially seems to be a lot of snide comments of about the pay packets of RNLI management but, as illustrated by the immediate issue it is a large and complex operation, and if you are capable of running such a set-up you deserve a commensurate pay package. .

In France it's done by volunteers. There are only 70 employees.

 

[Sybarite]

I am not sure this answers my concerns raised as to why this was such a crisis as it warranted removing the boat, after all whereas the crew may not be available for day to day service, I am sure the crew would turn up if the Maroons were launched. To this end I feel it would have been more effective to appoint a temporary but experienced Cox'n from the Mainland who could have overseen the craft and maintained its standby condition ready should its service be required.

I was moored beside it in September and there were people working on it.

 

[Bru]

In France it's done by volunteers

No it's not because ...

There are ... 70 employees.

So it's not ALL done by volunteers

And to be slightly facetious, perhaps if the SNSM employed more people in, say, fund raising they might be able to afford the fleet of new all weather lifeboats they wanted and don't have the money to buy

 

[superheat6k]

I have thought long and hard about this fiasco, including the polite replies to my email to them, which have essentially told me nothing apart from a requirement for all to tow the party line.

I think the RNLI has dropped the ball here and does not know how to pick it up again.

The Corporate mode of speaking is not ever going to help them, nor insistence of what are when all things are considered mostly petty rules to maintain / instigate a corporate mode of control. This is not a business corporation. It is (or at least certainly has been) a hugely successful and indeed unique voluntary based organisation.

No doubt in view of the sums of money poured into the RNLI there is a need to have professionals running the top structure, but this does not mean they should carte blanche interfere with the working structure, as appears to be the case.

Whether they (the RNLIA hierarchy) like it or not they run an organisation of 238 separate maverick gangs of heroes. No doubt these gangs will have a high level of pride, and rightly so where they have earnt this. Likely some will be very arrogant characters, and no doubt managing them must be quite a task.

But one does get the impression of a decision to impose a top down management to a organisation that despite, indeed in spite of the mavericks, and I daresay a fair concentration of prima donnas, they had, until very recently, a method that has actually worked very successfully for a very long time. Why else do they need a 'Transformation Director' - this very title speaks volumes here, and interesting that the individual fulfilling this role has abdicated her responsibilities to the Fundraising Director to speak on her behalf. Possibly an issue with Ego's here.

The adage 'if it ain't broke then why try to fix it' springs to mind.

Especially as the fixing appears to be to suit the Corporate image requirement, portrayed by the wordiness of the statements describing the current Board of Directors. I wonder how many of these have stood watch during a force 9 shout on one of these AWBs.

So mavericks, and perhaps a little arrogant, these crews and in particular their leaders might be.

If one of these was the guy hauling me out of the jaws of death during a storm 10 I would be eternally grateful for their arrogance and maverick nature. Towing the party line is in my view secondary here, and I think the RNLI need to re-learn this. Not sure having ego driven prima donnas running Poole will ever understand this though.

 

[Blue Sunray]

I have thought long and hard about this fiasco, including the polite replies to my email to them, which have essentially told me nothing apart from a requirement for all to tow the party line.

I think the RNLI has dropped the ball here and does not know how to pick it up again.

The Corporate mode of speaking is not ever going to help them, nor insistence of what are when all things are considered mostly petty rules to maintain / instigate a corporate mode of control. This is not a business corporation. It is (or at least certainly has been) a hugely successful and indeed unique voluntary based organisation.

No doubt in view of the sums of money poured into the RNLI there is a need to have professionals running the top structure, but this does not mean they should carte blanche interfere with the working structure, as appears to be the case.

Whether they (the RNLIA hierarchy) like it or not they run an organisation of 238 separate maverick gangs of heroes. No doubt these gangs will have a high level of pride, and rightly so where they have earnt this. Likely some will be very arrogant characters, and no doubt managing them must be quite a task.

But one does get the impression of a decision to impose a top down management to a organisation that despite, indeed in spite of the mavericks, and I daresay a fair concentration of prima donnas, they had, until very recently, a method that has actually worked very successfully for a very long time. Why else do they need a 'Transformation Director' - this very title speaks volumes here, and interesting that the individual fulfilling this role has abdicated her responsibilities to the Fundraising Director to speak on her behalf. Possibly an issue with Ego's here.

The adage 'if it ain't broke then why try to fix it' springs to mind.

Especially as the fixing appears to be to suit the Corporate image requirement, portrayed by the wordiness of the statements describing the current Board of Directors. I wonder how many of these have stood watch during a force 9 shout on one of these AWBs.

So mavericks, and perhaps a little arrogant, these crews and in particular their leaders might be.

If one of these was the guy hauling me out of the jaws of death during a storm 10 I would be eternally grateful for their arrogance and maverick nature. Towing the party line is in my view secondary here, and I think the RNLI need to re-learn this. Not sure having ego driven prima donnas running Poole will ever understand this though.

Good points and brings us back to your original question, rather than the (disputed and unclear) minutiae of the St Helier case. My answer to that question would be yes, they seems to have branched out in all sorts of ways away from their original purpose, including for instance, providing paid for life guarding services.

However, like it or not, the corporate entity (and/or directors/trustees) will be the one left holding the can if they are found in beach of the numerous laws and regulations to which they are subject and they are thus left with little choice but to impose far more central direction and control than might have been needed in the past (doesn't justify a Director of Transformation though).

 

[bigwow]

Good points and brings us back to your original question, rather than the (disputed and unclear) minutiae of the St Helier case. My answer to that question would be yes, they seems to have branched out in all sorts of ways away from their original purpose, including for instance, providing paid for life guarding services.

However, like it or not, the corporate entity (and/or directors/trustees) will be the one left holding the can if they are found in beach of the numerous laws and regulations to which they are subject and they are thus left with little choice but to impose far more central direction and control than might have been needed in the past (doesn't justify a Director of Transformation though).

So the logical end to this will be the need for a health and safety assessment before the boat is launched, then "o no it's far too rough to launch the boat".
Poole seem to think one size of management fits all, it doesn't, these men are more akin to buccaneers, they need managing with great skill, sometimes so they don't even realise they are being managed . Poole have dropped the ball big time here and it's a situation I feel they are going to find hard to row back from.

 

[Blue Sunray]

So the logical end to this will be the need for a health and safety assessment before the boat is launched, then "o no it's far too rough to launch the boat"

Indeed it is (clue, not all boats launch in all conditions).

 

[petem]

So the logical end to this will be the need for a health and safety assessment before the boat is launched, then "oh no it's far too rough to launch the boat".

But surely there must be some consistency / objectiveness in when a lifeboat should be launched and when it shouldn't. I would think there would be a failure in the RNLI's duty of care if they left this solely to the discretion of the 'bucaneers' in each station.

I know there's a natural instinct to take the side of the brave men and women who man the lifeboat but in this case I suspect that the way the cox has behaved has had a significant bearing on the withdrawal of the lifeboat.

Would I want him saving my life, absolutely, would want him as an employee, probably not!