On 20/02/2018 10:43, Vicky wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:21:20 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPGfirstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> In message
>> rg>, Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> writes:
>>> Vicky <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I am happy for Neil and if he accepts he will do the best he can, but
>> Yes, that was my feeling too.
>>>> he might not be so keen to help keep the pigs in an industrial unit.
>> Oh, I think Neil is sensible enough: he knows that such units are going
>> to exist, and he's not going to stop them - so if he can _influence_ how
>> one such is run, he might like that idea.
>> Plus, I think it'd suit him well: he _is_ getting on, so something that
>> allowed him to have to do less of the coal-face work, but still be
>> deeply involved, would IMO be good. I think the job would have appealed
>> to him even at a much lesser salary - say 30, or even a bit less.
>>>> But I really do not want Susan to be boss over Clarrie.Or boss of
>>>> anything. She is bad enough anyway.
>> That, I fear, is indeed a danger. I hadn't thought of that aspect. Oh,
>> hang on, I thought you were thinking of it as a side effect of the Neil
>> job: but you're talking about what TomandHelen did (rather suddenly I
>>>> Did it seem as if Tom and Helen gave her the raise and title to keep
>>>> her happy but were not keen to discuss the change with her? Tom ran
>> Yes - but does _anyone_ want to actually discuss _anything_ with Susan?
>> She does tend to go on at length given even a quarter of a chance. (And
>> often in a whiny voice, too.)
>>>> off apparently and Helen will say the kefir is not her job. Maybe
>>>> there won't be a real management job. Please!
>> Well, if it just means she's managing herself, fine; not if she's
>> "managing" Clarrie. Plus, if she is given not only control but
>> _responsibility_ for the Kefir "project" (as management-speak would call
>> it), fine: it can then stand or fall. (Though she'd have to be told in
>> no uncertain terms that it _can't_ impact other parts of the business -
>> no badgering customers, for example.)
>>> Haven’t heard this yet but my guess is the story planners will look for a
>>> scanario with dramatic tension. Otherwise, there isn’t much to say.
>> I fear you're right )-:. I guess now you're talking about the Susan
>> "promotion", but I fear Neil's good fortune (assuming he accepts it)
>> might also suffer in that way. One way in which it could, is the
>> people-management aspects: such a salary level, I fear, means Justin
>> (and his board, or is it just Justin?) would be expecting Neil to manage
>> people as well as the technicalities of the unit, and on the whole, I
>> don't think Neil is nasty enough to do that. (Managers don't _have_ to
>> be nasty - I remember one boss who wasn't, and people worked well for
>> him because otherwise they felt they were letting _him_ down, and didn't
>> want to do that - but that is very much the exception; usually, managing
>> is expected to involve being nasty from time to time.)
> As Justin pointed out to him, he has been chair of the Parish Council
> for some time and handled people well. He's managed to stay married to
> Susan for years too. That counts.