I simply cannot see how the victim’s salary is in any way relevant to the fact she was the victim of sexual harassment.

Her life has been ruined, her competence unfairly questioned and she’s been on the wrong end of a smear attempt and cover-up.

So she gets paid a lot. I’m sure if someone offered that salary to anyone on her for doing their jobs, they’d take it. She’s been compensated for some pretty appalling behaviour by her employer.

As other posters have indicated, the Trust caused the legal costs to be incurred by fighting to the bitter end.

Funny isn’t it – there is a regular stream of people coming on STW for advice about their job, and getting told (rightly, obviously) to write everything down, do this, do that and screw them at the tribunal for unfair dismissal as that’ll show them. No different in this case, though presumably she didn’t consult the STW massive.

Hope fully no other company will employ the guys who caused the issue, even if they did get some tasty payoffs themselves.

I simply cannot see how the victim’s salary is in any way relevant to the fact she was the victim of sexual harassment.

Relevant to sexual harassment? It’s not, and nobody at any point said it was. We are however, allowed to talk about whatever we please, including Public servants being grossly overpaid, which this lady and presumably everyone in a position equivalent to hers are/were.

Her salary isn’t unusual given that she was (an award winning) NHS director of a Trust that employees over 2500 staff. It’s high if you look at average HR manager salaries in general, but that can include more junior managers at smaller companies, potentially working part time. Her salary isn’t out of the ordinary for somebody of her level, working at an organisation of that size.

Whether it’s public or private sector is neither here nor there – if the private sector pays those kind of numbers, then the public sector has to compete. Being a bit of a filthy commie, I’d happily see salaries capped at a max across both, and having the money saved used to bump up the minimum wage to something above the living wage for lower end workers. But, as it it, high salaries can be commanded with people at the top of the chain in any organisation.

(I’m not Helen Marks, btw! It just annoys me when somebody is legally proven to be the victim of outrageous lies and discrimination, and some people’s first reactions are to victim blame rather than condemn the assholes who framed her, harassed here called her a whore for rejecting their advances, fabricated allegations about her, forced her out of her career, tried to cover up their actions, and decided to drag the whole thing out in court.)

Is it Norah Batty?

(here all week)

…some people’s first reactions are to victim blame rather than condemn the assholes who framed her, harassed here called her a whore for rejecting their advances…

Absolutely, this. We should never, ever lose sight of the fact that sexual harassment took place.

Her salary isn’t out of the ordinary for somebody of her level, working at an organisation of that size.

According to payscale.com, it is right at the very.very top of a HR Directors salary.

if the private sector pays those kind of numbers, then the public sector has to compete.

So you’re happy for the high quality pensions to take a dip to even it out then?

You seem to be having a crack at someone who has done none of what you are so excited about in your second post.

My issue is not with any of the court proceedings, but that NHS managers (and not just this one in particular) are overpaid (according to payscale.com, not user opinion) in an organisation which has not got a lot of money.

What Mrs Toast said.

It amazes me that people, Nick I’m looking at you in particular, think that as head of HR there is something more she could do if the chairman is the person committing the offence and there is collusion taking place to prevent her from pushing it through the trust. Her only support options were the abuser or colluding with him. She was left in a position where she could only take it to court, and given the abuse received and damage to her reputation I’m kind of surprised at the payout being that low.

My issue is not with any of the court proceedings, but that NHS managers (and not just this one in particular) are overpaid (according to payscale.com, not user opinion) in an organisation which has not got a lot of money.

Well if you will insist on using blunt averages like that then you are bound to come to this conclusion. If on the other hand you were to compare with similarly positions (i.e. very large companies) and included the entire remuneration package (i.e. more than just salary) you might have an opinion worth considering.

This is a cultural thing with the NHS.

I know of at least one case of negligence that resulted in the guilty parties being sacked and struck off, but then given a massive payout to not take it to a tribunal.

The NHS doesn’t like scandal and is a soft touch when it comes to stuffing people’s mouths with gold……………..

According to payscale.com, it is.

Is actually true though? It says:

National Salary Data (?)
£0 £50K £100K £150K
Salary
£41,423 – £97,582
Bonus
£960 – £20,691
Profit Sharing
£5.07 – £19,489
Total Pay (?)
£42,685 – £108,068

Makes it sound like it’s within the normal bounds Total Pay for the role. Searching for HR directors job adverts they often have suggested salaries around that level.

The NHS doesn’t like scandal and is a soft touch when it comes to stuffing people’s mouths with gold……………..

Erm… You might want to look again at how this was handled because I can’t think of a way in which you could be any further from the right end of the stick.

You might have a point there Danny, if that wasn’t completely not what happened. They fought it all the way through the courts and lost.

Well if you will insist on using blunt averages like that then you are bound to come to this conclusion. If on the other hand you were to compare with similarly positions (i.e. very large companies) and included the entire remuneration package (i.e. more than just salary) you might have an opinion worth considering.

Well if you had actuially bothered to look at payscale.com, you might actually have managed to know what you’re talking about and made a valid point. But you failed on all counts. Pat yourself on the back 🙄

Makes it sound like it’s within the normal bounds Total Pay for the role.

What? Do you understand the concept of SCALE? How is being right at the very very top (as I quite clearly stated), “par for the course” or “normal”?
A very large company will be 4-5 times the size of a trust. Not comparable.

Conclusion; some folks really want to have a go at this woman and since they’ve totally failed on a couple of fronts are now fixating on her salary, which is completely un-****ing-relevant. But if you’ve got your peanut ready to throw it’d be a shame to waste it.

What? Do you understand the concept of SCALE? How is being right at the very very top (as I quite clearly stated), “par for the course” or “normal”?

Well it’s £10000 off the “very, very top” for a start.

There really is some awful people out there.

Conclusion; some folks really want to have a go at this woman and since they’ve totally failed on a couple of fronts are now fixating on her salary

Not true, I have absolutely no issue with the lady at all. I have only said that we overpay some of our civil servants, and we do. Normal STW scenario, the unionised cannot possibly be doing anything wrong in communistrackworld eh?

Well it’s £10000 off the “very, very top” for a start.

The report I saw said she was earning £100K.

I’d be want them to be able to go to HR and I would expect them to have tools and procedures already in place. I would hope they would then follow those procedures and use those tools. If that then failed, as it sounds like happened in this case, I’d be blaming the CEO and HR director for creating an environment in which this can happen.

What does any of this actually mean?

some people’s first reactions are to victim blame rather than condemn the assholes who framed her, harassed here called her a whore for rejecting their advances…

Indeed. And she got payed too much anyway. 🙄

The report I saw said she was earning £100K.

Total Pay (?)
£42,685 – £108,068

Well it’s £10000 off the “very, very top” for a start.

NHs, so no bonus, no share options, no company car scheme.

And she got payed too much anyway.

Apparently, being paid a decent wage is one of the benefits of a decent education.

NHs, so no bonus, no share options, no company car scheme.

But 30-35 days annual leave, very high level of job security and a defined benefit pension scheme that’s worth around 40-50% of salary. Which makes the £100K NHS role equivalent to a £150-£160K role in the private sector.

Blimey I need to have a word with my boss as I don’t seem to be on that pension scheme.

very high level of job security

You have realised you are commenting ona person sacked who had to take the employer to tribunal to get justice

Its seems reasonable to point out that job security was not one of the benefits she received.

I have only said that we overpay some of our civil servants, and we do.

we overpay lots fo folk yet some on STW only want to say thins when its a public sector worker otherwise its what the market wil l support

Normal STW scenario, the unionised cannot possibly be doing anything wrong in communistrackworld eh?

Yah its the playground debate of straw men ad homs
No its thick squaddie moronic attack time…helpful eh 😕

TBH whether she was paid £1 or £1 million its an absolute red herring in terms of this issue and it leaves one wondering why folk are doing this.

Where do you get the annual leave figure from? Highest in my part of civil service is 28 and that is with 10 years service

we overpay lots fo folk yet some on STW only want to say thins when its a public sector worker otherwise its what the market wil l support

Looks like daft laboratory cleaner time to me :wink:. The “rich” are vilified on here routinely. Bankers, politicians, even people earning over the national average have been poked and sneered at as “rich”. Investors, landlords etc etc. By the same rules, this woman is rich and was before the pay out. Yet, as she is A-OK because she is a civil servant. Had she worked for HSBC as a HR manager earning £100K, I sincerely doubt that many on here would be defending her salary as robustly as they are.

What happened to her is dreadful. There is no excuse for the perps disgusting behaviour. That is absolutely by the by and not what I have spoken about at all.

I sincerely suspect that many on here wouldn’t be defending her salary as robustly as they are.

agreed

Damn stealth edit noticed.

I think her salary is probably excessive too wrecker – it’s far from the most important thing about this story though. Maybe some people are more annoyed because it’s a woman earning that much. 😉

Good luck to her…

…however I am not a junior doctor earning a lot less. I might be less charitable if I was.

Not that this has anything to do with the case either, but more about the value that is placed on certain functions.

STW is an amazing place – that folk know her and the context and facts involved in this case so well is truly incredible 😉

Blimey I need to have a word with my boss as I don’t seem to be on that pension scheme.

Drac, if you’re in the public sector you’re probably already in “that” pension scheme.

Nearly all public sector schemes are still “defined benefit”. There’s no risk attached to your final pension payment and the value of the “mitigated investment risk” represents a very significant premium anyone else would have to pay outside the public sector (up to 10 times the value – see link below).

Most public sector schemes require employee contributions of 5-15% but to get the same benefit “outside” their contribution would be 40% or more. That “gap” is effectively the employer contribution.

Another comparator – most private sector schemes attract an employer contribution of 3-5% of salary and are defined contribution i.e. the final pension scheme value has risk attached to it. I’ve just checked and the value of my own money purchase pension fund has gone down 20% in 6 months – that will be pretty typical for anyone outside the public sector but most in the public don’t have a clue about the real value of the pension (or if they do – it never comes up in context of overall pay!)

So the £100K HR director whether she realised it or not has total remuneration of £160K+ just as anyone on £40K in the public sector on a DB scheme is actually on a £65K ish as a comparison with a private sector role with a 5% employer co-pay.

https://www.pensioncorporation.com/news-media/press/55-your-salary-real-value-defined-benefit-p

So this isn’t about a woman being sexually harassed, bullied enough at work to be forced to quit and feel vulnerable. It’s about how lucky she should feel to being paid a fair wage and attract a good pension? That some makes her wage 50% more.

Maybe some people are more annoyed because it’s a woman earning that much.

I doubt it but you never know. I think £100K is a LOT of money. The PM only earns £140K-odd. £100K is demonstrably at the top of what her role pays throughout the market. It’s not a fair wage, not when we’re footing the bill, this isn’t remotely about her, the point is that there are LOADS of NHS managers. She may very well be at the top of her profession, and there may be many organisations who will pay that for her, but the NHS shouldn’t be one of them. It really doesn’t need the absolute very best of anything except care givers.

I made an observation from the article about £100K being a lot for a HR manager (which it is). I didn’t mean to detract from what has happened to the poor lady.

I work in HR, and 100k for an HR directors role in a large organisation seems about correct. There will be many HR employees in the industry that I work in that earn about that as a package, my HR director for example I’d expect to be on significantly more. Its a pretty big job, not as if they are just running payroll and dealing with the odd grievance here and there.

The issue of her pay however is completely irrelevant to her treatment.

That said 8 times her salary in a payout does seem particularly high based on the information available.

It really doesn’t need the absolute very best of anything except care givers.

Who are completely competent in running a massive organisation.

Oh wait, they’re not.

THAT is why you need the best. You can have the best staff in the world but if your executives are dullards you end up with Comet, Woolworths and whatever other failed business you care to mention.

Just5minutes

Go and take your prejudice elsewhere. I joined the civil service in 2003 and those pensions were already a thing of the past to new starters then, and the pension I got then has now been closed and replaced with a worse one. Sure, some long serving people still have them, but even they are being phased out and transferred over on an ag related basis.

Re job security – in those 12 years I have twice been transferred to other roles/agencies as offices and jobs are closed/lost.

Luckily I still have 30 days leave, but if I move to another role within the civil service I will lose at least 2 of thos to put me on the new terms.

Still generous I know, but the ignorance and prejudice about the public sector on here never ceases to amaze me. If it’s so cushy, how come you aren’t all climbing down from your high horses and queueing up to come and join us?

*And I’m only a tiny bit jealous that she’s on 4 times my salary.

It really doesn’t need the absolute very best of anything except care givers.

or engineers or bankers or whatever it is the company really does. yet every large company [ and none are larger than the NHS] sees the need to have a HR department

One may as well argue that the army does not need high quality support or decent generals as long as the troops are ace it wont matter– imagine fighting the wrong war with poor equipment and supplies not reaching you eh that wont affect it as long as the troops are the best. IMHO its a pretty daft thing to argue.

I dont disagree that its a very high wage however, the reality, whether i like it or not, is that is what they have to pay to get the best/decent employees. Blaming the NHS for this is also daft.

One may as well argue that the army does not need high quality support or decent generals as long as the troops are ace it wont matter– imagine fighting the wrong war with poor equipment and supplies not reaching you eh that wont affect it as long as the troops are the best. IMHO its a pretty daft thing to argue

*cough*

Iraq? 😉

THATS THE JOKE !

the serious point being the lack of appropriate equipment and protective vehicles actually cost lives.

The PM only earns £140K-odd

PM is a useless benchmark because 1) they do it for power not money 2) there’s only one pm 3) it leads onto a lifetime of directorships, speaking opportunities, consultancy gigs and bringing peace to the middle east