New Years Resolution ... Get Out Of Toxic Workplace

My Work Environment Was Turning Into An Abusive Situation So I Got Out Of It

Read more: http://elitedaily.com/life/surviving-abusive-relationship-with-boss/1709249/
Follow us on Instagram | Elite Daily on Facebook

Meanwhile, the reality is it is a big deal and it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, happen to everyone. Still, it’s happened to me at every single job I’ve ever had since I was 16. Through the years, I’ve always kept my mouth shut, and so have plenty of others. Why? Because young adults are made to feel like we need to be silent and take it, or we risk being stereotyped as “cry-baby” Millennials. And it goes beyond that. Us young adults are in a constant state of fear as we’re vainly threatened with potential termination if we don’t play by their rules, which are subject to change daily, with zero regulation or protection. Some businesses are led by true and authentic entrepreneur types, ones who are driven and on a mission toward success. However, many are incompetent, oftentimes sociopathic, leaders who bully their subordinates as they constantly get away with inflicting torture with their inappropriate words and actions.

Read more: http://elitedaily.com/life/surviving-abusive-relationship-with-boss/1709249/
Follow us on Instagram | Elite Daily on Facebook

I should’ve seen it coming sooner, but just like any other person who’s gone through a messy breakup, I was going to do anything in my power to make sure the next one worked out. I needed it to be “the one.” The thing is, it wasn’t a romantic relationship I was trying to force — it was my job.

Read more: http://elitedaily.com/life/surviving-abusive-relationship-with-boss/1709249/
Follow us on Instagram | Elite Daily on Facebook

I should’ve seen it coming sooner, but just like any other person who’s gone through a messy breakup, I was going to do anything in my power to make sure the next one worked out. I needed it to be “the one.” The thing is, it wasn’t a romantic relationship I was trying to force — it was my job.

Read more: http://elitedaily.com/life/surviving-abusive-relationship-with-boss/1709249/
Follow us on Instagram | Elite Daily on Facebook

My Work Environment Was Turning Into An Abusive Situation So I Got Out Of It
 

I should’ve seen it coming sooner, but just like any other person who’s gone through a messy breakup, I was going to do anything in my power to make sure the next one worked out. I needed it to be “the one.” The thing is, it wasn’t a romantic relationship I was trying to force — it was my job.

Read more: http://elitedaily.com/life/surviving-abusive-relationship-with-boss/1709249/
Follow us on Instagram | Elite Daily on Facebook

I should’ve seen it coming sooner, but just like any other person who’s gone through a messy breakup, I was going to do anything in my power to make sure the next one worked out. I needed it to be “the one.” The thing is, it wasn’t a romantic relationship I was trying to force — it was my job.  

After undergoing two years of manipulation, broken promises, and verbal and psychological abuse, the thing that bothers me isn’t that I went through all of that — it’s knowing I’m not alone.

(Despite the comparison, I am in no way trying to downplay the severity of the various types of domestic abuse. However, harassment in the workplace is an issue that’s depressingly more common than we think.)
Unless you’re hired under a workforce with a HR department (and keep in mind, they work to protect the company, not you), various forms of sexual harassment are simply tolerated.
Women especially don’t want to come forward and risk the financial cost of filing charges or risk having their names and reputations dragged through the mud. So instead, many women choose to brush it off and tell themselves “it’s no big deal” or “it happens to everyone,” simply to avoid the turmoil. 

Meanwhile, the reality is it is a big deal and it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, happen to everyone. Still, it’s happened to me at every single job I’ve ever had since I was 16.

Through the years, I’ve always kept my mouth shut, and so have plenty of others. Why? Because young adults are made to feel like we need to be silent and take it, or we risk being stereotyped as “cry-baby” Millennials.

And it goes beyond that. Us young adults are in a constant state of fear as we’re vainly threatened with potential termination if we don’t play by their rules, which are subject to change daily, with zero regulation or protection.

Some businesses are led by true and authentic entrepreneur types, ones who are driven and on a mission toward success. However, many are incompetent, oftentimes sociopathic, leaders who bully their subordinates as they constantly get away with inflicting torture with their inappropriate words and actions. 

They want to look the part and play the part, but not actually be involved or accountable. Who can you turn to when it’s the owner of the company putting you through such an ordeal? The answer is, sadly, no one.

I’m sure many people would wonder: If it’s really that bad, why would you stay? The answer is simple: money. 

I’m not trying to sound like a sellout, but we have to pay for health insurance, rent, car, food, heat, water and every other basic need. These bills come around like clockwork. They don’t care what you have to do to pay them, just as long as they get paid.

Like many others, I don’t come from money or have a financial fallback — and I don’t want to. I want to be independent. I need to work. However, job hunting isn’t a walk in the park; it can be difficult to find stable and secure employment. The fear of being jobless and broke keeps many people working hard at jobs they hate with people who don’t even treat them like human beings. 

The worst experience I had was working under a man who truly encompassed all of the qualities of the three demonic honchos of the movie “Horrible Bosses.”

Read more: http://elitedaily.com/life/surviving-abusive-relationship-with-boss/1709249/
Follow us on Instagram | Elite Daily on Facebook

The worst experience I had was working under a man who truly encompassed all of the qualities of the three demonic honchos of the movie “Horrible Bosses.” 

The owner was having an affair with his “assistant.” She never had to do any work — like, literally AT ALL. The rest of us were forced to clean up after her disgusting mess of garbage, open food containers and crumbs while she didn’t lift a finger. Other hardworking employees would get into arguments with him over his neglect, his drinking in the office and his assistant’s lack of contribution to the company.

If the assistant made a mistake, higher ups weren’t even allowed to correct her. Bring it up to him and he would imply we are all jealous of her beauty, even going so far as to say her physical appearance is what “kept the lights on” — not his loyal employees and their dedication and talent. While others worked hard for their bi-weekly check, his assistant paraded around in shiny red shoes, driving a custom car. (And our owner, a married man, was the one publicly paying for all of it.)

So naturally, resentment followed. People began challenging him and he grew more threatening and abusive — even going as far as screaming and cursing in a female employee’s face for questioning him. 

I would receive menacing phone calls for hours on end from him, where he would continuously try to manipulate me and speak poorly about the other staff, trying to turn us all against each other. If you requested someone else be present in a conversation or said you weren’t available off hours to talk, he would threaten you with termination, as you were a salaried employee and therefore his “slave.”

Slowly but surely, he got rid of any employee, one by one. He openly boasted about making their lives a living hell until they quit, proud he could avoid paying them a severance.

Still, the worst part of this story was no one could really help me. I went to employment lawyers for education and help, but it wasn’t enough. No one could do anything. After one consultation breaking down the nightmare I was living, the lawyer’s response was, “I’m not even speaking to you from a legal perspective right now, I am speaking to you as a human. Get out of there immediately.” 

When your boss is making your life a living hell, it can be tough to find the nerve to quit and move on to a job where you’re treated better. But in the end, that’s often all we can do. Having financial security is great, but it’s not worth any price. If your boss makes you feel scared or unsafe, my only advice to you is to get out. Your happiness and health is what matters most. 

Source: http://elitedaily.com/life/surviving-abusive-relationship-with-boss/1709249/

Bullying and Corporate Psychopaths at Work by Clive Boddy at TEDxHanzeUniversity

There are many great TED Talks on bullying in the workplace, here is one by English Professor Clive Boddy, based on his research findings looking at the link between Corporate Psychopaths and bullying, in Australian and the UK workplace.
 

 
Characteristics of Bullies:
Enjoy hurting others, cruel, selfish, parasitic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, callous, disrespectful, abusive, lacking in empathy remorse or guilt, and good at political networking skills.

'Corporate Psychopaths are those people who go into organisational and corporate positions rather than a criminal career.'

'Psychologists have slowly come to realised that those from better socio-economic background, perhaps with a good education and good family backgrounds, have worked out early that it's far easier to get the power, prestige and money that they want from a Corporate career, than from a criminal career.'

'Psychopaths have absolutely no conscious'
 
2008 Study revealed:

AUSTRALIA
* 1% of people (Corporate Psychopaths) accounted for the presence of at least 26% of all bullying by Australian mangers (from study sample of 346)
* Under normal managers, employees encountered bullying 9x per year
* Under Corporate Psychopaths, employees encountered bullying 64x per year

UK
* Found more bullying and more Psychopaths in the UK.* 1% of people (Corporate Psychopaths) accounted for the presence of at least 36% of all bullying by Australian mangers
* Under normal managers, employees encountered bullying 13x per year
* Under Corporate Psychopaths, employees encountered bullying 84x per year
 
Link between Corporate Psychopaths and Bullying

WHY DOES BULLYING OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE?

* Psychopaths bully as it's predatory, they enjoy doing it, they like to hurt people and damage their careers.
* 'Instrumental Bullying' -  to create confusion and chaos around them, enables them to form their own agenda to promote themselves, creating a smoke screen so they can get on with their agenda. This explains why Psychopaths get promoted over others, as they are manipulators.
*Linking at an organisational level eg: Enron, was reported to have a culture of bullying, of staff, agencies, suppliers, to keep them all in check to perpetuate the fraud. The same culture was found in banking institutions during the Global Financial Crisis, don't ask questions or you'll get into trouble' which covers up fraud.


Further reading: The Implications of Corporate Psychopaths for Business And Society: An  Initial Examination And A Call To Arms

Prof Clive Boddy is a Professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at Middlesex University in England. For the past seven years, he has studied the evidence and effects of toxic leadership, and in particular the influence of the presence of corporate psychopaths on various workplace outcomes, including on levels of conflict and bullying at work.

KARMA: Bully Bitten in the Bumb as Kevin Rudd's not the man for the United Nations: Helen Clark is far a better choice

Published in SMH.COM.AU , 16th July 2016
Written by: Elizabeth Farrelly
We really need to talk about Kevin. Our choice is between a wildly inexperienced but bumptious male and a wise, experienced female, respected, accomplished, fit-for-purpose. But really, is this even a contest?

I'm not talking Trump v Clinton (although if the cap fits, right?) I'm talking Kevin Rudd v Helen Clark, vying for UN Secretary-General.

Remember what this means. Secretary-General is not some sinecure for time served, some handy side-pocket for a pesky ex-PM. This is the search for the next Yoda. Wanted: Supreme Being, Planet Earth. Of course it's not Australia's decision, but Malcolm Turnbull is expected any moment to announce our nomination (or not) of Kevin Rudd as Candidate 13. Question is, should he?

The question must be asked. Does Rudd really have the gravitas to hold down Secretary-General?

 Helen Clark, New Zealand's then-prime minister, right, looks on at Kevin Rudd in 2008. Photo: Bloomberg

Clark has been number three at the UN for seven years. Before that, she was NZ's (best) PM for nine. Rudd is also "over there", gracing the dining rooms and draughty halls of New York with his yet-undeclared campaign. PM for only three years, and then in two parts, bookending Gillard, he is more renowned for back-stabbing and bad-temper than compelling leadership. As a presence on the world stage, Clark towers over him.

If Malcolm had just one act left, one wave-of-the-wand to restore Australia's tattered image as a grown-up nation, it should be this. Transcend national rivalry. Forget the Bledisloe Cup, won by NZ 43 times of 55. Be big. Support Helen Clark for Secretary-General.

The decision must be made well before Ban-Ki Moon retires on December 31. From August, the UN Security Council (always dominated by the five permanent members with veto rights; France, Russia, China, the US and Britain) will ruminate and eventually hand its decision to the General Assembly for ratification. That much is the usual faux-democracy.

But the lead-up process has been, for the first time in 70 years, semi-transparent. There are 12 official candidates – counting Clark but not (yet) Rudd. Half are women, eight are Eastern European, two Latin American/Caribbean and two "Western European and Others". That's us, "others". Australia, NZ etc. Misc.

Already, several live-broadcast debates have let the candidates strut their stuff. Clark's performance in the latest, on Wednesday, won applause – for her humour (quipping that the group should be called "Western European and Orphans"), her insistence that Sec-Gen is not a turn-taking thing, like some dole-out of Olympic lollies, but a "global search for the best talent" and her frank criticism of the UN's human rights and conflict resolution record. It reminded me why Clark is such a standout. She never lets go of principle.

Clark has her critics, of course. But colleagues and staff remember her with immense respect, using phrases like "utterly focused" and "utter integrity."

"Fantastic," said her former Defence Minister Phil Goff of Clark, praising her focus, her "utter integrity," and her grip on "kiwi values," What values? Well, pluralism, feminism, fairness, decency, courtesy, frankness and backbone, for starters.

As a three-term PM she transformed social and cultural attitudes – presiding, not least, over Maoridom becoming cool. That alone is huge. In 1999, before her first election as PM, Clark persuaded the eloquent Maori mayor and former sex-worker Georgina Beyer to contest the right-leaning seat of Wairarapa; becoming NZ's first openly transsexual MP and a much-loved public figure.

In 2001, when Howard was still doing children overboard, Clark's government welcomed 131 people from the Tampa. Without fuss, they accepted hundreds from Australia's festering prisons on Nauru and Manus. Then, unlike Australia's policy of preventing family reunions, worked assiduously to locate and reunite family members.

In 2002, Clark formally apologised to Samoa for injustices committed under NZ rule, and to the LGBTQI community for harm and ill-treatment. In 2003, when the Blair-Bush team were stamping their war-boots, Clark refused to send troops to Iraq, saying that a Gore presidency in the US would not have invaded. So now, post-Chilcot, when we're all wondering why Howard and the Coalition of the Willing should not be named as war criminals, NZ looks strong and honourable.

She made the unpromising-looking MMP voting system work by forming strong alliances with the Greens and others and, throughout, refused to play the gender card, so transforming the status of women.

As to Rudd? Much of the criticism directed at him is personal – the temper tantrums, the selfies, the narcissism, the tendency to bully staff. This is largely irrelevant to his professional performance, especially since most of the bullying accusations originate with political opponents – in particular Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop.

Gillard's description of the bullying amounts to little more than stepping angrily "into my space", which seems scarcely coup-worthy. And although Bishop told the ABC in 2009 that "bullying behaviour by the Prime Minister … is totally unacceptable" she now, mysteriously, supports Rudd's UN campaign.

So no. It's more about Rudd's accomplishments and the extent to which these demonstrate leadership qualities like wisdom, principle and moral strength.

Rudd began well, coming in on a landslide and within months ratified the Kyoto protocol and offered the Stolen Generations an apology that echoed Keating's. Thereafter, it started to look more like gesture than fact. The Rudd-Swan team is often credited with our weathering the GFC relatively unscathed, but that's more reliably down to the zero debt they inherited from Peter Costello. Rudd's white paper on homelessness (2008) attracted attention, with the PM sleeping rough, but – like his 2020 summit – changed little.

There was an emissions trading scheme that exempted high-emitters, an asylum-seeker policy that rejected more applications than Howard and a promised NBN for which we're still waiting.

So, honey, do we really have to talk about Kevin?

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-kevin-rudd-we-should-back-helen-clark-for-united-nations-secretarygeneral-20160714-gq5s9p.html

COMMENTS - LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK ...

• Truffles McLobsterJul 16 2016 at 12:46am
  Yep. Rudd would do silly things like speaking out on behalf of the marginalised and the dispossessed. Clark is too clever to make that mistake.
  • sangelaJul 16 2016 at 10:53am
    You're joking, yes?
• PaybackSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 2:40am
  Kevin Rudd's off stage temper and ability to work with others would become an international embarrassment, he doesn't belong on the world stage.
• MichaelBringelly,Jul 16 2016 at 4:12am
  Elizabeth you left out one sentence. If Kevin Rudd was the only applicant the world would be better served by nobody.
  Helen Clark is an Olympic finalist, whilst Rudd is little Athletics..
• DuralsumoDural,Jul 16 2016 at 7:36am
  Too right she is!
• NullacritterJul 16 2016 at 7:48am
  Completely agree, someone more like Helen Clark and less like Kevin Rudd is what the UN needs.
  Unfortunately, for that reason, it will likely not happen.
• Black snakeWest Woombye,Jul 16 2016 at 8:02am
  I think it is safe to say that the UN knows exactly what Rudd is and shall treat him accordingly. We did.
• topenderJul 16 2016 at 8:08am
  Spot on, KRudd is tantrum throwing egomaniac why on earth would anyone let him near the UN ??
• The KiwiJul 16 2016 at 8:16am
  You could do a lot worse than have Helen Clark as SG. She is incredibly diligent, focused, capable and outcome driven.
• rob1966Sydney,Jul 16 2016 at 8:30am
  Trump as US President? Bois Johnson as UK Foreign Secretary? Rudd as UN Secretary General?
  It's the worlds worst nightmare!
  Start digging your fallout shelter ...
• Mike FCheltenham, NSW,Jul 16 2016 at 8:32am
  But hang on - Helen has Kevin's full support, doesn't she? Shouldn't he be trusted at his word? Given Kevin's substantial history of honest dealing, he wouldn't be publicly supporting someone while secretly white-anting them and promoting himself, now would he? I hope that, among others, Mark Latham and Julia Gillard proceed immediately to say just how safe it is to trust Kevin.
  ...Mike F
• wellsieJul 16 2016 at 8:50am
  Couldn't agree more! Go, Helen. Go away, Kevin.
• James RSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 8:52am
  Rudd and Clark - chalk and cheese. And despite Kevin's cheesy grin he's the chalky, flaky substance.
• Rainer the cabbieLost at the interchange,Jul 16 2016 at 8:56am
  I perceive the UN as an organisation that talks and talks, makes resolutions that don't get enforced and then backtracks until the next thing comes along.
  Kevin would be the perfect fit to lead that outfit. He'll inject some insanity, irrational behaviour and look at me theatre as well.
• Dr KiwiJul 16 2016 at 9:08am
  Clark was one of our best PMs - she showed that negotiation in good faith with other parties can lead to stable and effective government under the NZ MMP political system.
  That is not a bad track record to bring to the job of Secretary-General - ability to negotiate rather than grand-standing should be an essential criterion for that job.
• ebtSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 9:15am
  I agree completely. Kevin Rudd did a few things well and should be recognised for that, but the trail of problems and utter mismanagement he left in his wake is there for all to see and will take decades for hard-working Australians to resolve.
  To imagine scaling-up those errors to a global size just makes me shivver. Helen Clark is clearly a rare talent and has the potential to become a global stateswoman without peer. Malcolm doesn't often get these things right, but here's his big chance - support Ms Clark for UN Secretary-General.

Why would we want to inflict Rudd on the UN?

OPINION
The Drum
By Daryl McCann 
Posted 4 Feb 2016, 8:58am

Everyone knows how dysfunctional Kevin Rudd's leadership style was, so why would senior Coalition members consider backing his bid to become Secretary General of the United Nations? Daryl McCann writes.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 must rate as one of the lowest points in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. On that day a leadership spill in the Australian Labor Party resulted in caucus recalling Kevin Rudd to the prime ministership by a margin of 57-45. Few on the Labor side of politics could offer any reason for doing so other than political expediency ahead of the 2013 federal election - the national interest did not enter into their calculation.

Photo: Kevin Rudd is said to be hoping to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations. (Chip East : Reuters)
A similar criticism, paradoxically enough, might now be made of certain Coalition politicians, including Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who are considering backing Kevin Rudd's bid to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations at the end of 2016.

Michael Costa, former minister in a NSW Labor government, is not the only Labor stalwart to quip that are plenty of people who still respect Rudd but only because there are people who are yet to work with him. Fifty-seven members of the federal ALP caucus knew exactly the kind of character Rudd was but nevertheless returned him to the Lodge - the most responsible and important position in the land - hoping that the electioneering magic of Kevin 07 had not been entirely exhausted.

On regaining the prime ministership, Rudd claimed that three years in the political wildness - OK, winging around the world as foreign minister - had resulted in a character transformation: a "new humility". A few tried to convince themselves it was true, even if the facts pointed in entirely the opposite direction. Let's face it, by June 2013 Labor knew Rudd was a danger to Australia and yet 57 members of the Caucus voted him back into power.
To the extent there is a job specification for the position of UN Secretary General, Rudd does not fit the bill. The UN's risibly short memorandum calls for candidates with "the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity" along with "proven leadership and managerial abilities". The character assessment made by the full spectrum of Kevin Rudd's own party and advisors alone should disqualify him from consideration for the top UN job.

So why are members of Prime Minister Turnbull's Government threatening to foist Rudd not only on Australia but also on the entire world? Despite their obvious differences as politicians, Turnbull and Rudd are both aficionados of the art of triangulation. There is nothing wrong per se with operating from the middle of the political spectrum, and I have argued before that there are advantages in PM Turnbull shifting the Coalition towards the centre.

"Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism."

The risk of triangulation, however, is that endlessly positioning between genuinely competing views can signify not reasonableness but hollow opportunism. Take, for instance, Rudd's changeability on the issue of comprehensive border control. Obviously there were mistakes in the way Rudd went about dismantling Howard's Pacific Solution, something acknowledged even by some on the left.

Shortly before Rudd was forced out of the prime ministership, Julia Gillard identified "loss of control of borders" - according to an email disclosed in Troy Bramston's Rudd, Gillard and Beyond (2014) - as a key problem for the first Rudd administration. Come June 2013, though, and Rudd was tacking to the right of Gillard's Pacific Solution II and to the left of Tony Abbott's Operation Sovereign Borders with an irresponsible warning about a war with Indonesia.

Perhaps all this positioning and re-positioning and supplementary re-positioning is Rudd merely trying to "get the balance right". Or, more likely, the fellow is a hollow opportunist who does not stand for anything except his own self-advancement. Here we begin to see the conjunction of grand narcissism and capriciousness culminating in a dysfunctional leadership style. This, of course, is not exactly what the endemically dysfunctional United Nations requires right now.

Which leads us back to the question of why members of the Turnbull Government would countenance Rudd's candidacy for the top job at the United Nations in the first place. On the surface, at least, it might seem statesman-like of the Coalition to accommodate the aspirations of a former political adversary. It might give the appearance of bipartisanship and reaching across the political aisle, but it is a mirage.

Lending any kind of support to the vaulting ambition of a man whose career already exemplifies the Peter Principle par excellence would not only be an act of narrow political calculation but of great irresponsibility. Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism.

Some might argue that Rudd remains a long shot and so a bout of feel-good nationalism on the part Julie Bishop et al for "our Kev" won't do any damage. Still, we must always expect the unexpected in the opaque realm of international bureaucracy.

Australia will have a lot to answer for in the decade ahead if, later this year, Kevin Rudd's name gets pulled out of the hat.

Daryl McCann writes regularly for Quadrant and the Salisbury Review. Visit his blog.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/mccann-why-would-we-want-to-inflict-rudd-on-the-un/7138408

Outbursts become rude reminders of Kevin Rudd's past

Published in : The Australian    
Date: August 23, 2013 12:00AM

Written by: Rachel Baxendale, Reporter, Melbourne and Sid Maher, National Affairs Editor, Canberra

A RETIRED air vice-marshal has accused Kevin Rudd of "bully standover tactics" and a make-up artist has declared he was rude as she prepared him for the people's forum debate, reviving questions about the Prime Minister's character that emerged in his first stint in the role.

Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss revealed Mr Rudd had warned him in a private meeting that funding for veterans would be at risk if he "bagged" the Labor government. He accused Mr Rudd of using "classic bully standover tactics" and threatening veterans with getting nothing if they criticised Labor's military superannuation indexation policy.

The air vice-marshal's comments came to light as Brisbane make-up artist Lily Fontana posted a message on Facebook that suggested Mr Rudd had been rude to her in the lead-up to Wednesday night's people's forum in Brisbane.

The revelations blunted Labor's attacks on Tony Abbott's character, after the Opposition Leader snapped during the forum debate, asking of Rudd "does this guy ever shut up?"
Ms Fontana, who lives in Mr Rudd's electorate of Griffith, wrote in her post: "Just finished doing Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott's make-up for the People's Forum at the Broncos Leagues Club. One of them was absolutely lovely, engaged in genuine conversation with me, acknowledge (sic) that I had a job to do and was very appreciative. The other did the exact opposite! Oh boy, I have ever (sic) had anyone treat me so badly whilst trying to do my job. Political opinion aside ... from one human being to another ... Mr Abbott you win hands down."

The post echoed claims that Mr Rudd had been rude to air force staff during his first term as prime minister. In the lead up to his failed February 2012 leadership challenge against Julia Gillard, an expletive-laden video was leaked of him losing his cool as he prepared a Chinese-language video.

As news of yesterday's Facebook post spread, prompting a string of government ministers to have to defend Mr Rudd's character, the Prime Minister's office was confronted with fallout from Air Vice-Marshal Criss's revelations in an interview on Brisbane radio on Wednesday.

The retired airman alleged that at a meeting in the Prime Minister's office on July 11, attended by Mr Rudd, Defence Force Welfare Association national president David Jamison, DFWA executive director Alf Jaugietis and Defence Materiel Minister Mike Kelly, Mr Rudd warned the DFWA against bagging the Labor government.

"I told him I was going to have to point out to our members that what Labor is offering is not a good deal," Air Vice-Marshal Criss said.

"I'm the national media manager, so I told him I would be putting together policy comparisons of what each party is offering. Rudd said, 'That's fine, but don't bag us, because if you bag us, we'll pull up the drawbridge and you'll get nothing'."

Air Vice-Marshal Criss told The Australian yesterday he had been intending to stay quiet about the incident, but chose to speak out after becoming infuriated with what he termed Dr Kelly's "untruths" about military superannuation indexation during an interview with ABC News Breakfast's Michael Rowland on Monday.

On July 30, the government announced it would boost the military pension of more than 26,000 retired Australian Defence personnel by indexing their payments in the same way as aged and service pensions from next July. But the measure only applies to those aged 65 and over, which according to the DFWA leaves more than 200,000 servicemen and ex-servicemen on insufficient payments.

Dr Kelly said the way Air Vice-Marshal Criss had characterised the meeting was "absolutely untrue". "He's basically saying that the Prime Minister was threatening," Dr Kelly said.

"That's completely untrue. He was there to engage and support (the DFWA representatives) and they were very happy that they were there having the meeting.

"The only way he could have construed that was perhaps that we emphasised the importance of acknowledging the changes to the system that had been made by Labor."
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said he did not accept Air Vice-Marshal Criss's characterisation of the meeting.

"The Prime Minister had a productive meeting with members of the Defence Force Welfare Association, including Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss," the spokesman said.

"The outcome of the meeting was that the Prime Minister agreed to support the next step of the DFWA's proposal for indexation and we look forward to ongoing constructive engagement with the DFWA on this matter."

Ms Fontana's Facebook post yesterday was shared more than 1000 times on the social networking site before Sky News ordered the freelance make-up artist to take it down.
She contacted Mr Rudd's office and offered an apology to the Prime Minister. By mid-morning, Ms Fontana had posted a new, regretful message.

"Didn't think my personal page/opinion of my day would get so much attention," she wrote. "What a lesson to learn. I've removed the post and regret making the comments I did."
Another Brisbane-based make-up artist, Abigael Johnston, who has worked for the Nine Network, had posted on Ms Fontana's wall about a "similar experience" with Mr Rudd, noting John Howard and Peter Costello were "gentlemen". "The other, I could not even face book (sic) how he treated the crew. Just abhorrent!" she wrote.

When contacted, Ms Johnston said: "That post has been taken down. I have no comment."
Employment Relations Minister Bill Shorten defended Mr Rudd's character, saying he believed the Prime Minister had changed. "I have no doubt that not only is Kevin Rudd a more consultative person, but he is the right leader for these times," he said.

Former prime minister Bob Hawke, in Adelaide for a state Labor event, said voters did not care whether Mr Rudd was rude.

"If you're an intelligent voter, what's going to be more important to you: the fact that, under a great deal of pressure, the Prime Minister was just in passing a bit rude to a person, or that he is going to have for you and your kids and your grandchildren, a better education policy, a better health policy a better economic policy?" Mr Hawke said. Asked about the Facebook post, Mr Rudd said he understood "the person concerned has withdrawn their remarks from Facebook, and they regretted making those comments".

"When you are preparing for a debate with two or three minutes to go and someone walks in and puts stuff on your face, you smile, you are in the zone, you're ready to go," the Prime Minister said. "I don't know about you folks, but I'm not happy about having make-up put on at the best of days.

"You smile, then two or three minutes later out on the stage to participate in the debate - I think a misunderstanding has occurred and I have no hard feelings in terms of the comments which this person has now withdrawn."

Mr Abbott fumbled Ms Fontana's name - calling her "Tilly" - but he praised her professionalism and said the pair had an enjoyable conversation prior to the contest.
He played down his "does this guy ever shut up" remark during the people's forum. "Look, one contest that I can never win against Mr Rudd is a talkathon," the Opposition Leader said.

Mr Abbott said Mr Rudd suffered from being "all talk and no action".
Mr Albanese said Mr Abbott's response to Mr Rudd was "aggressive, was angry, and it reminded me of a leader we used to have, Mark Latham".

"I thought his handshake during the first debate was his first Mark Latham moment, and last night we saw his second Mark Latham moment ... People are right to be worried about this bloke, about whether he is up to the job," Mr Albanese said.

Additional reporting: Sarah Elks
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/outbursts-become-rude-reminders-of-pms-past/story-fn9qr68y-1226702470808

Horror in UK Hospital as Bully Nurses are 'struck off' after worst hospital scandals in living memory!

The bullies who will never nurse patients again: Pair who ruled A&E unit at scandal-hit Stafford hospital 'with fear' and covered up neglect are struck off

• Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsified A&E discharge times
• They wanted to hit target for patients to be dealt with in four hours
• Hearing told some racist staff even forced black patients to wait longer

Sharon Turner, left, and Tracy White, right, falsified Accident and Emergency discharge times to avoid missing a government goal for patients to be dealt with within four hours. A string of allegations was found proved including Turner instructing nurses to ‘lie’ about waiting times in A&E and saying she planned to make another nurse’s life ‘hell and get rid of him in six months’.

Two senior nurses at the centre of one of the worst hospital scandals in living memory have been struck off.
Sharon Turner, 48, and Tracy White, 52, stood accused of ruling the A&E unit at Mid Staffordshire ‘with fear’ by bullying other nurses into covering-up the appalling neglect of patients.
They are the first two nurses from the trust to be struck off. Up to 1,200 patients are feared to have died there unnecessarily between 2005 and 2009.

 

 

Disciplined: Tracy White, left, and Sharon Turner, right, faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital. Today, they were struck off 

This year a damning report into the scandal concluded that ‘appalling and unnecessary suffering’ was inflicted on hundreds of patients who were left ‘unwashed, unfed and without fluids’.
But until now, not a single doctor or nurse had been struck off or even lost their job over the failings, to the dismay of grieving families.

More...

• Whitehall's straight talk: Civil servants told to stop using jargon that confuses people about what the Government are doing

Yesterday the Nursing and Midwifery Council banned the two nurses from ever practising again for undermining the public’s faith in the profession.
The panel ruled they had conspired to fiddle the figures on waiting times ‘with sheer dishonesty’ and had ‘coerced and frightened’ other more junior nurses to do the same.

Horrific: Up to 1,200 people died unnecessarily at the 'horror hospital' as managers put benchmarks above patient care

Mrs Turner, who lives in Cannock, Staffordshire, admitted to the three-strong panel she had once said she ‘did not give a flying f***’ about one of her patients.
When told by other staff that a patient had requested something, she said: ‘They want to get f****** real’, the panel heard.
Mrs Turner, who qualified as a nurse in 1993, also allegedly branded Asian junior doctors ‘suicide bombers’ and ‘Osama’s mate’, in a reference to the late Al Qaeda leader.
The former ward sister, who worked in the A&E department between 2003 and 2009, also vowed to make one male nurse’s life ‘living hell’ leading him to take an overdose – which he survived.
Mrs White, who has been a registered nurse since 1992, bullied staff into lying about the length of times patients waited in A&E to meet the Government’s maximum four-hour target.
Astonishingly she is still working at the hospital and since leaving the A&E unit in 2009 had been promoted to one of the most senior management positions.
She is currently clinical site manager – in charge of allocating patients to beds – on a salary of up to £47,000, about £10,000 more than her previous nursing role.

Whistleblower: Helene Donnelly said Sister Turner - along with Sister White - would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged

Whistleblowing nurse Helene Donnelly revealed Sister Turner – along  with Sister White – would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged. She recalled: ‘They would frequently lie about discharge times, and pressurise members of staff to lie. They would speak nastily and swear at people who did not change the times, or would change the times themselves.
‘The drive for targets was obviously a huge thing at the time. We were told that jobs might be on the line if we didn’t do it.’
Stephen Redmond, who chaired the hearing at the Old Bailey, told the two nurses that they had failed to put patients and their care first.
‘Instead you made the achieving of statistical targets, by honest or dishonest means, your primary aim. This was not a one-off failing, rather it was at the heart of the way you worked over a sustained period.’
He said they had resorted to ‘sheer dishonesty’ by altering paperwork and said they had ‘coerced and frightened other, often junior, members of staff into doing the same. You shouted and swore at them if they did not comply when you should have been setting an example.’
Julie Bailey, who helped expose the appalling neglect at Mid Staffordshire following the death of her mother in 2007, said: ‘This is the start of accountability in the NHS. We’re all very pleased at the outcomes. But there is clear evidence these nurses should have been suspended long ago by the trust.’
She also said it was ‘frightening’ that despite being struck off, the pair could still work in hospitals as healthcare assistants.
The cases began in March but had been repeatedly adjourned and had only begun considering evidence against the pair this week.
Another five nurses from Mid Staffordshire are having their cases considered by the NMC including the former chief nurse, Jan Harry.
Maggie Oldham, chief executive at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘Tracy White is still employed by the trust. We will need to take some time to consider the Nursing and Midwifery Council panel’s findings.’
The trust said Mrs Turner had stopped working for it in 2009.

SHE MADE THOSE IN PAIN WAIT

Among the most repellent examples of the behaviour of Tracy White was her lack of care and respect for an elderly woman in her final 24 hours.
She reprimanded the seriously ill patient by calling her a ‘naughty little monkey’ for not taking her laxatives, and refused to help lift her from a wheelchair to a bed, saying: ‘I’m not doing this. I’m not hurting my back.’
Whistleblowing nurse Helene Donnelly said the woman, who died the next day from a pulmonary oedema, or fluid on the lungs, had been given ‘a very uncared-for and undignified last 24 hours’. Another patient, who arrived at A&E suffering from bleeding after having an abortion, was refused immediate treatment by Sister White, who said: ‘She can wait, if you can do that to your baby.’
The whistleblower also claimed: ‘Sister White would deliberately make patients wait. Black patients were being made to wait.’
When junior nurse Mrs Donnelly was scathingly told off by another manager for faking a discharge time, she said she looked at the paperwork and recognised White’s handwriting.
But the senior nurse did not come forward to admit the forgery and was later promoted to her current role as clinical site manager.

FIGURE OF FEAR FOR HER STAFF

On the wards, Sharon Turner sent waves of fear through junior staff afraid to challenge her expletive-ridden diktats.
When one bullied male nurse took an overdose in despair, she said he ‘should have taken a few more and done the job properly’.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council was told Sister Turner had vowed to ‘make his life hell and get rid of him in six months’ and ‘drive him to drink’ so that ‘he would be out of here’.
When a colleague was taken to hospital with  a head injury, the mother of two is said to have told staff: ‘I don’t care if she lives or dies.’
Asian junior doctors had to put up with appalling racist abuse from the senior nurse.
She asked one, ‘What have you got in your rucksack doctor, is it a bomb?’ and referred to others as ‘him in the turban’ and ‘her with the yashmak [veil]’.

source

MONSTER MANAGERS - Profiling Types of Monster Bosses

Monsters are real — as anyone who has ever worked for a nightmare manager can attest. Here we look at the qualities that distinguish a good boss from a bad one, and ways to avoid becoming a monster in the workplace.

Most monsters are frightening but fictional. However, we sometimes encounter a person who seems to have been pulled directly from our nightmares, and this is especially frightening when that person turns out to be our boss. A broad range of traits can make a manager seem monstrous, but that doesn't mean they're unique in their awfulness. In fact, it can be comforting to note that plenty of employees have to deal with nightmare bosses every day.

"These days there are websites where you can post horror stories about your boss, commiserate with other long-suffering subordinates or even e-mail your boss an anonymous letter telling him or her just how ineffectual he or she is," CFO Daily News explains. "Seems there's an epidemic of bad bosses out there."

The workplace can be a surprisingly spooky place. According to a survey from CareerBuilder.com, 18 percent of workers described their workplace as frightening. Based on a poll of 4,000 employees, here are the most common types of monsters — not all of them bad — workers said their bosses resemble:

• Glenda the Good Witch — Someone liked and respected by nearly everyone in the office (20 percent);
• The Wolf Man — A boss who's fine one minute and then terrible the next (11 percent);
• The Invisible Man — People notice that this boss is never around (10 percent);
• Casper the Friendly Ghost — A boss who is eager to help others, but is often misunderstood (9 percent);
• Dracula — This boss simply sucks the life out his employees (6 percent);
• Wicked Witch of the West — Unlike Glenda, this boss is conniving and has an army of underlings performing dirty work (5 percent);
• The Mummy — A slow-moving boss with an ancient management style (4 percent);
• The Grim Reaper — One who is constantly delivering bad news and inspiring fear among the staff (3 percent); and
• Frankenstein — A boss who's green with envy (1 percent).

Although many employees are dissatisfied with work conditions, problems with their bosses generally stem from a handful of specific problems that point to a fundamental disconnect between management and staff. An inability to listen is one of the key factors preventing a boss from engaging with employees.

"On one hand, there is the blabbermouth theory of leadership. In Western cultures, the person who talks the most is viewed as having the highest status. And interrupting people is a way to seize power," Robert Sutton, a professor in Stanford University's department of management science and engineering, told Inc.com. "Certainly talking is more pleasant than listening. But most bosses ought to shut up and listen more."

Listening is crucial not only because it improves relationships with employees, but also because it allows a manager to pick up on workplace details that he or she may not have noticed (or wanted to notice) before.

"One thing most bad managers have in common is they're not consciously aware that they're bad managers," BNET explains. "And if they are aware of it on some level, they're probably not willing to admit it to anyone, least of all themselves. That's because nobody wants to believe they're the problem."

So, as a manager, how can you tell if your employees view you as a bad boss? Sutton, writing at the AMEX OPEN Forum, offers the following signs that your reputation as a manager may be slipping:

• You look out for yourself and everyone else is an afterthought;
• You're hard on your workers because you think they'll screw up without your "guidance";
• You transmit but don't receive, mostly just pretending to listen to others;
• You never say "thanks" or "please" because it's a waste of time;
• You're a stickler for punishment, so your workers know when they make a mistake they'll pay for it;
• You never mess up, or in other words, never admit to messing up;
• You take all the credit, regardless of how much you contributed to the work;
• You don't tolerate dissent, making life hard for anyone who dares to disagree with you;
• You focus on your top performers, making sure they get the best of everything while everyone else is ignored;
• You only care about the big ideas, because the small stuff, like implementation or practical considerations, are beneath you; and
• You don't care what it's like to work for you, and if employees are dissatisfied, too bad.

No one wants to be a bad boss, but these traits can be hard to recognize in oneself. When performance begins to lag, employees become disinterested in their work or the atmosphere in the workplace becomes noticeably uncomfortable, signs point to a problem that management needs to address.

"You can tell if you're making mistakes as a leader because things go wrong — not just one catastrophic computer snafu but repeated errors," CNN.com explains. "Bad bosses turn away from these realities. They don't discuss problems; they just hunker down and hope the issue will go away. It won't. Untreated, a minor concern becomes a major issue becomes a catastrophe."

So what qualities define a good boss? According a recent survey from staffing firm Adecco, the types of leadership employees most desired were "visionary" (23 percent) and "democratic," (23 percent) meaning that workers want managers who set out clear, achievable goals and accomplish them with close collaboration and feedback from their employees. Moreover, 88 percent of employees said a good boss jumps right in to important projects and helps the team get the job done.

"Ultimately, the secret to being a 'best boss' isn't all that mysterious — employees respect bosses who work as hard as they do," Adecco explains. "They value constructive criticism regarding their work and they appreciate having a friendly relationship with their boss, but they don't feel the need to be 'friends' outside of work (or even online) with them. Employees want a boss who encourages a healthy work-life balance, while also practicing what they preach in leading by example."

source