Spot the difference

Two news stories today - both from "Roll on Friday" (always a good source!).

The first is about Eversheds who are, apparently about to outsource its entire fiance team. Well, I say outsource - the story in fact says that the team will be made redundant and the work moved to an outsourcing firm in India. Outsourcing does seem to be the current "thing to do" - last year it was redundancy, this year it's outsourcing. Eversheds are also, apparently, looking at outsourcing some legal work to regional firms.

The second story is about Edinburgh firm Shepherd & Wedderburn who have just announced that they will be compensating those members of staff who agreed to take unpaid leave last year. In the height of their recession, S&W asked staff to take unpaid leave to avoid further redundancies. Apparently 98% of their staff agreed with the proposal and the firm survived. One year on and now that things are recovering, S&W have announced that they will be repaying 50% of the amount staff lost by taking unpaid leave. Patrick Andrews, the firm's CEO (and I won't get into the whole subject of a law firm CEO who is really, at best, a Managing Partner) in on record as saying that "...[it] without doubt the right things for us to do for the medium to long-term". Absolutely - let's acknowledge that the staff did something for us when needed and so we will repay that trust in the firm as soon as we can.

Spot the difference in approach to a firm's staff. In one firm, staff appear to be thought of as drones who do not add any strategic value and who can be replaced by either cheaper people or machines. In the other firm, staff are people who contribute to the strategic future of the firm and who make a contribution which is recognised and acknowledged by the firm's management.

I know which I would rather be working for.

Confidence, Trust and the Way Forward

I've just come from a morning lecture by Lord Digby Jones. He spoke very well (of course) and shared his enthusiasm for Britain as a trading nation.

Amongst his other points, two in particular are sticking with me. He spoke about confidence and in the British (or I would say more English) reserve which stops us celebrating success. In these turbulent times, success is more important than ever - as is the knowledge of that success. To paraphrase Lord Jones - if you've had a success then shout about it. Tell everyone. He spoke about ringing the BBC to suggest that they go to see three businesses which were doing well in this recession. Sadly the BBC were "too busy". Good news rarely sells.

My other immediate take away was on the subject of trust. In response to a question on the subject, he told us that Britain still had a high reputation of trust and integrity - notwithstanding the current debacle concerning our MPs. Trust is everything. Do what you say you will and do nothing which you fear being published. Sounds simple doesn't it.

Regulation and Trust

I normally try to avoid blogging on the same subject more than once, but will do so now on the subject of MPs and expenses. 

The revelations continue (see the BBC's list today) and my faith in MPs as a whole is possibly damaged beyond repair - certainly for the current class of MPs - and I'm not sur

e I had that much regard for them in any case. There are three main problems for me:

1. The "I was following the rules" excuse. I have a real problem with any individual suggesting that they have no moral compass themselves and instead are simply looking at the letter of a rule or procedure and following that. Not only that - some MPs seem to suggest that if no rule exists to stop a form of behaviour, then they are free to do it. This excuse suggest not only a lack of ethics on the part of those hiding behind the excuse, but an ignorance of how non MPs might react to the use of this excuse.
2. The "It was the Speaker's fault for not regulating the system properly" excuse. It may well be true that Speaker Martin was incompetent, but let's take this excuse to an extreme. I've never been charged with murder, and never seen a murder investigation in action. Some cases would suggest that there can be problems in murder investigations and, undoubtedly, some murderers are never caught. Does that suggest that, were I to commit a murder and get caught, that the system is to blame because it did not stop me sufficiently? No - of course not.
3. The "It was the broken system at fault" excuse. Yes it was. Sadly for the current batch of MPs, it's their system. How many MPs complained last year about lax regulation and a dodgy expenses system. Not enough. I seem to remember a close vote about the release of the expenses information and a plan to release it in July when MPs would be away from the prying eyes of the media.

There is something desperately wrong with an individual - whether an MP or a banker or anyone else - who's excuse for at best immoral behaviour is that there were rules covering this behaviour.

I didn't think I could be shocked by MPs any more, but they have managed it. The defence of the system last year is incredible (see here) and certainly helped to engender a culture of, if not expense fiddling, certainly one of screwing the system for all it's worth. That elected MPs should be have in this manner is appalling. I am equally shocked by the reaction of some MPs to being "caught out". Stepping down at the next election is no good. They will continue to claim a full salary and presumably full allowances until a date up to a year in the future. They should go now and, if there has been wrong-doing rather than "just" immoral behaviour, they should be prosecuted immediately.

Heads should roll - and many of them.

Update:

And another justification for immoral behaviour...

Update 2 - 28/05/2009:

More going - but, again, not until the next election. Good - but not good enough. They should go immediately.