Derek 'Napoleon' Simpson

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[paddyhasneeds]

It's a shame that all the st like this is being buried amongst the NOTW stuff.

[BuzzLightyear]

Good call on starting this thread.

UNBELIEVABLE hypocrisy!

[hornetrider]

BuzzLightyear said:

UNBELIEVABLE hypocrisy!

Indeed. I doubt he'll be saying anything about it though.

[mattviatura]

BuzzLightyear said:

UNBELIEVABLE hypocrisy!

It isn't unbelievable at all though is it?

Great thread, good day to bury bad news and all that. You can bet your bottom dollar this won't appear on BBC News 24.

[Puggit]

article said:

Len McCluskey, who succeeded Mr Simpson and Tony Woodley, who were joint leaders of Unite, made it clear he believed the payment was "inappropriate" and that it was made by a regime with lower standards of transparency and probity.

He stressed there would be no "golden goodbyes" at Unite while he was leader.

Just when he leaves then, as a thank you for preventing them being given to anyone else

[Mojocvh]

Puggit said:

article said:

Len McCluskey, who succeeded Mr Simpson and Tony Woodley, who were joint leaders of Unite, made it clear he believed the payment was "inappropriate" and that it was made by a regime with lower standards of transparency and probity.

He stressed there would be no "golden goodbyes" at Unite while he was leader.

Just when he leaves then, as a thank you for preventing them being given to anyone else

"Let them eat cake"

[Fittster]

I thought you had to pay to get top talent or does that only apply to certain industries?

[Fittster]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And that never happens in the private sector?

[Caulkhead]

Fittster said:

I thought you had to pay to get top talent or does that only apply to certain industries?

These people are elected, not employed.

[Caulkhead]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Of course it does, but not using union dues.

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The differences aren't subtle in that top private sector people, including those vilified at global level, have transferable skills beyond being a dinosaur troublemaker and move on after job loss and being pilloried.

Feb
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...

Jun
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/09/ton...

We must now wait and see if the dinosaur finds his jurassic park.

[Countdown]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What's the difference between Shareholders Funds and Union dues?

Like any private organisation its between him and his employers, whoever they are.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

The differences aren't subtle in that top private sector people, including those vilified at global level, have transferable skills beyond being a dinosaur troublemaker and move on after job loss and being pilloried.

Feb
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...

Jun
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/09/ton...

We must now wait and see if the dinosaur finds his jurassic park.

What does "Transferability of skills" have to do with "Size of payoff"?

It seems extremely hypocritical to laud one and demonise the other IMO.

Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 19th July 12:38

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

The differences aren't subtle in that top private sector people, including those vilified at global level, have transferable skills beyond being a dinosaur troublemaker and move on after job loss and being pilloried.

Feb
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...

Jun
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/09/ton...

We must now wait and see if the dinosaur finds his jurassic park.

What does "Transferability of skills" have to do with "Size of payoff"?

You missed out the context of my reply, surely by accident when you didn't click on 'quote all', so here it is in summary, look back a few posts for the original:

"And if he was that good, where has he gone to?"

"And that never happens in the private sector?"

HTH

Countdown said:

It seems extremely hypocritical to laud one and demonise the other IMO.

Neither was lauded; both have been demonised in various ways.

An illustration of a point was supplied.

[baz1985]

It is a logic of capitalism. If one succeeds with an apparently limited skill-set, then that should be lauded!

[turbobloke]

baz1985 said:

It is a logic of capitalism. If one succeeds with an apparently limited skill-set, then that should be lauded!

Talentless popularity in winning a vote to gain a moderately well remunerated politicised post could be thought of as a form of success, but then a turd can be thought of as a form of fertiliser.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

The differences aren't subtle in that top private sector people, including those vilified at global level, have transferable skills beyond being a dinosaur troublemaker and move on after job loss and being pilloried.

Feb
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/en...

Jun
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/09/ton...

We must now wait and see if the dinosaur finds his jurassic park.

What does "Transferability of skills" have to do with "Size of payoff"?

You missed out the context of my reply, surely by accident when you didn't click on 'quote all', so here it is in summary, look back a few posts for the original:

"And if he was that good, where has he gone to?"

"And that never happens in the private sector?"

HTH

Sorry, I've re-read the previous posts and I think I'm missing your point

Payoffs happen regularly. They have nothing to do with a person's "transferability of skills". They have everything to do with Contract of Employment and/or negotiation skills. DS did what anybody in his position would do. He is/was employed to do a certain job by the members of his Union, his pay package has got nothing to do with anybody else

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

It seems extremely hypocritical to laud one and demonise the other IMO.

Neither was lauded; both have been demonised in various ways.

I disagree. The whole reason behind this thread seems to be to point a wagging finger at DS. Plenty of people, in both Private and Public Sectors, leave with generous payments.

[turbobloke]

Fine, miss the point of my reply n times if you like, your rhetorical devices are as usual quite transparent.

I'll continue to reply to those aspects of threads and posts that are of most interest to me, not to those which you wish I was replying to in order to fail to make your labour-ed point.

As to the relative merit of golden hellos or parachutes, it's subjective and in politicised cases will be susceptible to the usual bias.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

baz1985 said:

It is a logic of capitalism. If one succeeds with an apparently limited skill-set, then that should be lauded!

Talentless popularity in winning a vote to gain a moderately well remunerated politicised post could be thought of as a form of success, but then a turd can be thought of as a form of fertiliser.

On first glance I thought you were describing MPs