Golden Handshake

Andrew Layman:  PCB CEO

All my working life I have been waiting for my employer to offer me a golden handshake for being fired. It’s never happened, and I don’t expect it to happen in the future either. This practice seems to be reserved for public officials or really highly-placed corporate executives. The most recent example is the affair of the Director-General in the Department of Communication (or is she already the former D-G?). Media reports claim that she has been fired, but also suggest that she has been offered a seven-figure payout to resign. While the media doesn’t seem to understand the difference, being fired and resigning are not the same process. This affair highlights the cavalier attitude that government has to its own labour legislation and its propensity to spend public funds in an entirely unjustified manner. The fact of the matter is that if the lady has failed to do her job properly or has committed misdemeanours of one type or another, a charge against her should be laid and a disciplinary enquiry held. This would determine whether she should be sanctioned and, if so, whether dismissal is appropriate. If it is, there is absolutely no justification for considering a payout. Instead, we have been told that the relationship between her and the minister has broken down. That may well be the case, but the reason for such a breach is important. The law, as far as I am aware, does not cater for situations where employer and employee do not like one another. In a working environment it must be accepted that not everyone likes everyone else, but they have to bury their personal differences and get on with the job. One of the cogent reasons why the small business sector, despite its objections, needs the regulation of labour legislation is because many employers would prefer to hire and fire on the basis of whim. This is exactly what the Minister of Communication appears to have done, and in the absence of clarity, and the offer of a pay-out (payoff?), we are left with the impression that there is no substantial reason for his action. Reports have also suggested that the staff in the department celebrated the D-G’s departure, but this is no reason to believe that she did anything wrong. Perhaps she insisted on a work ethic and efficiency that were not habitual in that office. On the other hand, she might have a record of poor relations with her staff, in which case she should not have been appointed in the first place. In the sphere of employment, it is astonishing how many people are employed in senior positions before they are found to be wanting in some important aspect or another. A conscientious check into past record would have revealed these shortcomings in most cases. I find it interesting that government departments, state-owned enterprises and corporates (and sports bodies, by the way) are seldom taken to task for buying off the executives they wish to get rid of. In most cases, surely, there must valid reasons for wanting them replaced. In an age of performance appraisal it is not so difficult to terminate the contract of a person who, given key performance indicators, fails to achieve them. After all, such a person is happy to enjoy the reward when his or her goals are exceeded. The trouble is that in some environments, notably the public sector, bonuses are available to those who do not achieve the objectives. In my view, if these are laid down they should be the minimum standards expected for earning the fat salaries, not justification for awarding bonuses in addition. An aggregate of all the amounts awarded in golden handshakes over recent years would make very interesting reading. We would be appalled, I think, at the number of people who have been enriched for not doing their jobs properly.

Leave a Comment