longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
Also my understanding.
St Helier
- Thread starter Ehecatl
- Start date
Also my understanding.
petem
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
The RNLI are a great asset to this country. They're properly world class in terms of skills and equipment and provide coverage to the whole of the UK coastline. Is it therefore in anyone's best interest that RNLI stations go their own way? An independent operation must surely lose out on having the backup that the RNLI has and also expertise and other economies of scale.
I don't doubt that the RNLI made mistakes but I'm equally sure that Andy Hibbs didn't handle things as well as he could have. But you really can't have local crews thinking they are more important than the organization and in my opinion, if Andy Hibbs is unable to reconcile his differences with the RNLI he should step back and encourage his crew to resume their duties.
The RNLI are a great asset to this country. They're properly world class in terms of skills and equipment and provide coverage to the whole of the UK coastline. Is it therefore in anyone's best interest that RNLI stations go their own way? An independent operation must surely lose out on having the backup that the RNLI has and also expertise and other economies of scale.
I don't doubt that the RNLI made mistakes but I'm equally sure that Andy Hibbs didn't handle things as well as he could have. But you really can't have local crews thinking they are more important than the organization and in my opinion, if Andy Hibbs is unable to reconcile his differences with the RNLI he should step back and encourage his crew to resume their duties.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
That's how it feels to me, and consistent with everything I've read on this.
RichardS
N/A
Re: Conclusions accurate?
Surely natural justice would dictate that if Andy Hibbs "didn't handle things as well as he could have" and now has to "step back" ...... then the RNLI management who didn't handle things as well as they could have should also be forced to "step back"?
Richard
Surely natural justice would dictate that if Andy Hibbs "didn't handle things as well as he could have" and now has to "step back" ...... then the RNLI management who didn't handle things as well as they could have should also be forced to "step back"?
Richard
RichardS
N/A
"bloke loses his rag, gets sacked for it" then gets re-instated with full apology for the sacking from Management.
That's not like anything I've ever heard before.
Richard
Strolls
Well-Known Member
Admittedly #105 are just allegations posted anonymously or by someone on Facebook, but there's something about the explanation that I find fairly convincing.
You could at least read it properly:
The crew strike and ‘discussions’ take place. The RNLI do not issue a full apology as is constantly being mid reported but issue an apology effectively saying “ sorry for the way that the investigation was handled, BUT your previous behaviour and misdemeanours was a contributing factor to how we handled it” the actual apology letter that was published seems to have been removed from most media pages for some reason. The RNLI told Andy he could come back but had to sign the Volunteer Code of Conduct again as a reminder as to how he is supposed to act. He signs it and then breaks it within a few hours.
It then goes on to explain how RNLI appointed a station manager, and the coxswain didn't like it. The Jersey Evening Post "8 questions answered" piece also reports the appointment: "A new station manager role was set up for a 12-month period to help bridge the gap between the St Helier crew and the RNLI in the UK."
Andy's father and grandfather were coxswain before him, so the new role of station manager usurps his role and means he's no longer the boss.
RichardS
N/A
I could, at least read it properly. Really?
I most certainly did but perhaps you should read every other article which describes it as a "full apology," and although we're down to semantics here, I would describe any apology which ends with the conclusion that "your dismissal has now been rescinded and you are formally re-instated" as a full apology.
Why do you think the RNLI published the apology letter but have now removed it from media sources? Do you think this removal is because the wording of the letter improves or worsens their position?
Read the link in post #136 to find out more about the temporary "Station Manager". Note that this article is not an anonymous posting on Facebook.
Richard
dunedin
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
And with a charity funded by donations and manned primarily by volunteers, you really really can’t have the central HQ salaried staffers thinking they are more important than the volunteers who put their lives at risk at sea.
And with a charity funded by donations and manned primarily by volunteers, you really really can’t have the central HQ salaried staffers thinking they are more important than the volunteers who put their lives at risk at sea.
Poecheng
Well-Known Member
As to the relationship between the local station and the RNLI HQ, I happened to pick up Fastnet Force 10 by John Rousmaniere last night.
In chapter 10 he addresses The Rescuers: Asking the Impossible and describes the respect in which the typical lifeboat person is held and the press reports that are made 'in the most respectful language' before turning to Churchill's words about the typical lifeboat .
"Whether the ten thousand or so lifeboatmen actually believe everything that is said about them is doubtful; many, if not most of them are but fishermen in small communities, and the burden of personifying such an institution can be heavy. In any case, few are singled out for national attention, and the head office of the RNLI usually exerts little control over a station's activities. For most lifeboatmen, the local station is the RNLI and although HQ in Poole allots them funds and equipment and periodically inspects their boats, they feel beholden to nobody except themselves.'
In chapter 10 he addresses The Rescuers: Asking the Impossible and describes the respect in which the typical lifeboat person is held and the press reports that are made 'in the most respectful language' before turning to Churchill's words about the typical lifeboat .
"Whether the ten thousand or so lifeboatmen actually believe everything that is said about them is doubtful; many, if not most of them are but fishermen in small communities, and the burden of personifying such an institution can be heavy. In any case, few are singled out for national attention, and the head office of the RNLI usually exerts little control over a station's activities. For most lifeboatmen, the local station is the RNLI and although HQ in Poole allots them funds and equipment and periodically inspects their boats, they feel beholden to nobody except themselves.'
petem
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
How the RNLI deal with the conduct of their staff is an internal matter for them and requires a proper investigation.
What I do know is that if I was falsely accused of something at work and I sent my seniors a load of shitty emails I'd probably get the sack regardless.
How the RNLI deal with the conduct of their staff is an internal matter for them and requires a proper investigation.
What I do know is that if I was falsely accused of something at work and I sent my seniors a load of shitty emails I'd probably get the sack regardless.
fisherman
Well-Known Member
Happy days! There is much muttering even at our local station about the autocratic attitude of the management, and more than a little, "we are more important" which is true really. ther have been fall outs and departures of people who saw themselves as being passed over. There seems to be a more hands on management regime, getting involved in the minutiae of the station that wasn't there in the past, rightly or wrongly
http://www.ybw.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6252917
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
Humm quite so quite so.
The difficulty with recruiting and training Senior Staff to any Charity is getting the 'right stuff' in the first place, I would suggest? Just maybe this time some Senior Managers / Directors are perhaps 'square pegs in a round hole' when it comes down to working and Managing dedicated Volunteers on whom the whole Charity depends.
The RNLI Management certainly does not make the RNLI what it is today, (or perhaps was), its the dedication, experience, abilities, willingness, knowledge etc etc of the Volunteers
If the RNLI folded this week, might suggest that enough Lifeboats could be found to man the Stations adequately, using the present Volunteers and the Local support available.
There are Lifeboats designed, built, sold by other countries and the inshore Ribs abound in Manufacturers leaflets.
There is now enough Knowledge to acquire modified Out Boards to an RNLI standard so no probs there.
Might suggest that part of the present problems are around the apparent recent regs about Charities and the implementation of a system where there are really no Volunteers as was known, Charities appear to being obliged to take any consenting Volunteers into a Staffing situation with the Charity where a Charity / Company Volunteer has to apply and be checked out first then offered, if thought suitable, a Contact of Unpaid Employment but abiding rules and Management with the Charity/Company and so the relationship between Volunteer and Management in a Charity is then difficult.
In this situation I can quite see that any long standing Volunteer (old style) might find it difficult to adopt and adapt to the changes in decision making imposed upon them.
Humm quite so quite so.
The difficulty with recruiting and training Senior Staff to any Charity is getting the 'right stuff' in the first place, I would suggest? Just maybe this time some Senior Managers / Directors are perhaps 'square pegs in a round hole' when it comes down to working and Managing dedicated Volunteers on whom the whole Charity depends.
The RNLI Management certainly does not make the RNLI what it is today, (or perhaps was), its the dedication, experience, abilities, willingness, knowledge etc etc of the Volunteers
If the RNLI folded this week, might suggest that enough Lifeboats could be found to man the Stations adequately, using the present Volunteers and the Local support available.
There are Lifeboats designed, built, sold by other countries and the inshore Ribs abound in Manufacturers leaflets.
There is now enough Knowledge to acquire modified Out Boards to an RNLI standard so no probs there.
Might suggest that part of the present problems are around the apparent recent regs about Charities and the implementation of a system where there are really no Volunteers as was known, Charities appear to being obliged to take any consenting Volunteers into a Staffing situation with the Charity where a Charity / Company Volunteer has to apply and be checked out first then offered, if thought suitable, a Contact of Unpaid Employment but abiding rules and Management with the Charity/Company and so the relationship between Volunteer and Management in a Charity is then difficult.
In this situation I can quite see that any long standing Volunteer (old style) might find it difficult to adopt and adapt to the changes in decision making imposed upon them.
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
Humm not wishing or implying any thing detrimental to you or your work situation, but might suggest that our local Lifeboat manning institutions are far more dependent upon the local Volunteers than you are; so not horses for courses by any means, eh ?
Humm not wishing or implying any thing detrimental to you or your work situation, but might suggest that our local Lifeboat manning institutions are far more dependent upon the local Volunteers than you are; so not horses for courses by any means, eh ?
petem
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
It's not a question of who is more important, it's an organization that has many roles to make it work. Nobody should be more important than anyone else.
In this case, the volunteers seem to think they are more important than the RNLI service in Jersey, and that can't be right.
It's not a question of who is more important, it's an organization that has many roles to make it work. Nobody should be more important than anyone else.
In this case, the volunteers seem to think they are more important than the RNLI service in Jersey, and that can't be right.
Poecheng
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
As has been demonstrated (at least temporarily), the volunteers are the RNLI service in Jersey.
As has been demonstrated (at least temporarily), the volunteers are the RNLI service in Jersey.
petem
Well-Known Member
Re: Conclusions accurate?
But to take that to it's logical conclusion would be to suggest that head office should be totally beholden to volunteers and therefore allow them to do exactly what they want. That can't be right.
But to take that to it's logical conclusion would be to suggest that head office should be totally beholden to volunteers and therefore allow them to do exactly what they want. That can't be right.
RichardS
N/A
Re: Conclusions accurate?
Quite right ... it is an internal matter and the RNLI need to investigate what happened and take whatever action is necessary. I have never suggested anything different.
If you were falsely accused of something at work and your company then issued a statement saying that the matter should never have been investigated (presumably because it was clearly a stitch-up right from the beginning) and you then wrote shitty emails to the company, the company might indeed dismiss you. However, you would win an unfair dismissal case and commensurate compensation at an Employment Tribunal unless your emails were so extreme, as I indicated, that dismissal was the only reasonable course of action open to the company.
Your posts are full of assumptions and, as I keep saying, until the emails are released, I will be unable to provide a definitive judgement on the case.
Richard
Quite right ... it is an internal matter and the RNLI need to investigate what happened and take whatever action is necessary. I have never suggested anything different.
If you were falsely accused of something at work and your company then issued a statement saying that the matter should never have been investigated (presumably because it was clearly a stitch-up right from the beginning) and you then wrote shitty emails to the company, the company might indeed dismiss you. However, you would win an unfair dismissal case and commensurate compensation at an Employment Tribunal unless your emails were so extreme, as I indicated, that dismissal was the only reasonable course of action open to the company.
Your posts are full of assumptions and, as I keep saying, until the emails are released, I will be unable to provide a definitive judgement on the case.
Richard
Sailingsaves
Well-Known Member
I think Dogleg and other posters supplied the links; I simply placed them all in one place to help see if I was understanding everything correctly.
The Jersey newspaper seems excellent; concise, to the point etc.
I hope it gets sorted for the sake of seafarers and the islanders and it would be good if the RNLI made as full and transparent statement of the facts as possible to ensure they retain the public's respect (all in my opinion).
dogleg
Well-Known Member
when the HQ was basically the CI and secretary crews complained of remoteness from the coast, disputes at LB stations are nothing new I can recall them happening way back, the RNLI in recent years have made an effort to try and get some form of standardisation and fairness at stations particularly relating to training and assessment before becoming crew this is now done by full time RNLI trainers, no longer by buying drinks in the pub, the RNLI now has to comply with MCA requirements as well as the MAIB and various HSE laws and I can well understand why some will complain, promotion to coxswain is now by operational pass out exercise not as in my day by crew vote
I know of at least one station where perhaps one man has too much power and where attempts are being made to make them comply with SOP'S so st helier may not be the last
dogleg
Well-Known Member
I have spoken to a LB crew member of 30 years standing who has seen some of the emails which he describes as "vile and disgusting"
since the full facts are not public no one can say who is to blame looking at the FB post I copied it would appear that the coxswain had been close to or had overstepped the mark before
you would agree I hope that any large organisation has to have rules or whatever that it has a right to impose, the most important clause in the RNLI code of conduct is perhaps that which ask all f/t and volunteers not to act in a way which could cause harm to it