u4's HR department

[the8moss]

The 8 moss, is simply some one, not rooker, whom enjoys to banter of a debate.

Perhaps plays devils advocate.

He certainly does not believe anything that is placed on this web site.

He believes that any one whom has faith in their findings on this site is a fool.

Lighten up and have some fun, after all for most, thats all this web site is!

Originally Posted by the8moss

The 8 moss, is simply some one, not rooker, whom enjoys to banter of a debate.

Perhaps plays devils advocate.

He certainly does not believe anything that is placed on this web site.

He believes that any one whom has faith in their findings on this site is a fool.

Lighten up and have some fun, after all for most, thats all this web site is!

so mr '8moss' , just to play devils advocate (a game you apparently enjoy) - if someone commits an act of gross dishonesty, do you think they should be fired?
just a theoretical question of course, after all, you are the 8moss, and not infact rooker. arent you??

[the8moss]

Should a person commit an offence, which of course what
Rooker has done (if at all true) then they should both be prosecuted and fired. From what I have heard, he has deliberately obtained a pecuniary advantage by deception, which is a Theft act. s.15 offence. In my opinion, he has got of lightly.

It is all good and well for people to say that what Rooker did was common practice within u4, but that does not make it right.

I would suggest, that if Rooker suffers as a consequence of his actions, then he deserves all he gets.

However, additionally, it seems proper that all senior managers that have encouraged and condoned this behaviour should also suffer the same retribution.

Originally Posted by the8moss

Should a person commit an offence, which of course what
Rooker has done (if at all true) then they should both be prosecuted and fired. From what I have heard, he has deliberately obtained a pecuniary advantage by deception, which is a Theft act. s.15 offence. In my opinion, he has got of lightly.

It is all good and well for people to say that what Rooker did was common practice within u4, but that does not make it right.

I would suggest, that if Rooker suffers as a consequence of his actions, then he deserves all he gets.

However, additionally, it seems proper that all senior managers that have encouraged and condoned this behaviour should also suffer the same retribution.

well 8moss, this is closest post to reality that you have done! i totally agree that erac senior managers should be called to account about the turning of blind eyes, thus condoning illegal / unethical issues, but here lies the problem. the senior management in u4 (yes with several excepions) are very poor role models, look how they ran their branches, look what they "are not aware of" going on in there area.

it is pretty simple, if an area manager can sucessfully plead ignorance to the commonest deceitful acts commited at one of their branches,THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PROMOTED! everyone knows it is piss easy to spot, without even trying!

and if a GM will allow an arm to plead ignorance to this, he himself is clearly not demonstrating the basic competency's of the role, i think PDF fits this bill perfectly.

[the8moss]

Whilst on the surface, I have to agree with all that you write, the problem is intrinsic in that, with the company’s atrocious attrition, the staff whom facilitate the operation are naïve to the staff that manage them, and the procedure they adhere to.

Thus we create a palpable dichotomy, in that staff and even lower level managers are adhering to procedures laid down by their predecessors, to which the predecessors could legitimately reattribute their staff for. However, staff of your level, whom clearly have the knowledge, seem powerless to act upon this.

Surely, senior management have a responsibility to educate the ones whom follow them.

It’s simpl to lay the blame on the name pdf, but what about the staff below him, whom facilitates the operation.

Managers and area managers should become accountable for their businesses that they run. Theoretically, all staff whom are employed by enterprise are free thinking individual, whom should be held accountable.

Myself, I am a MT, yet already, I have declined to follow procedures that I feel are unethical. I do not claim to be perfect, but I have a social and moral conscience, both to my customer, my business and potentially any staff whom may follow in my operational procedures.

Perhaps, people whom point the finger, and blame pdf for the companies faults, then go out and facilitate his operations, should take a step back and look intrinsically, to the operational procedures they are facilitating, and the example they are manufacturing.

Hope this makes sense after about 7 cans of Stella.

The8moss

(Reed it backwards)

i disagree with you on the pdf point, i think he is the very person who sets the tone in the entire group, it all filters down from him, if he set the tone that he would not tolerate (in any form, from anybody, NO EXCEPTIONS) unthical behaviour to his city managers, who in turn would set this same tone with area managers, who in turn set this tone to their branch managers, etc etc. you would find that the prevalent unethical behaviour in u4 would be removed. But, the problem is this 'setting of the tone' does not exist, sure there are examples where pdf has clearly wanted to get someone out, and used the whole ethical conduct excuse, but what people really see is the huge number examples which go unpunished, or ignored, this lack of consistency in treatment spells out in the clearest way possible that, the message from the top (ie PDF) is that ethical conduct is optional, just dont get caught, or if you do, just hope your face fits.

if you read this website (the u4 thread) it doesnt take you long to read about a number of examples of clearly unethical conduct which have been ignored, indeed, how can some of these individuals have gone on to be promoted?

after considering this point for some time i can only assume one of two things ;-

1) PDF is really that stupid that he gets the wool pulled over his eyes about these issues.

or

2) that PDF himself considers ethical conduct to be optional

either way, both conclusions really dont sit well with a GM's position, and particulary in a company like erac who clearly aspire to behave ethically.

IMHO!

There are a lot of people on this site missing the point entirely! Rooker has been sacked to be made an eample of. If ERAC sacked everyone that did something ethically wrong they would have very few employees left.
The fact is that managers are not able to do their jobs properly without cutting corners. Not that cutting corners makes much more money (erac buys and sells cars, thats where the money is .. its just rents them out for a little while in between!)
Like many other things in ERAC you are made the feel from the outset that unethical behaviour is the norm, much like no breaks...washing toxic chemicals down a public drain ... over billing ....leaving rental contacts open .... etc etc.

Rooker has been singled out because he is not a 'yes man' he has an opinion (not the erac way i fear).

I agree .... good luck mate!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There are a lot of people on this site missing the point entirely! Rooker has been sacked to be made an eample of. If ERAC sacked everyone that did something ethically wrong they would have very few employees left.
The fact is that managers are not able to do their jobs properly without cutting corners. Not that cutting corners makes much more money (erac buys and sells cars, thats where the money is .. its just rents them out for a little while in between!)
Like many other things in ERAC you are made the feel from the outset that unethical behaviour is the norm, much like no breaks...washing toxic chemicals down a public drain ... over billing ....leaving rental contacts open .... etc etc.

Rooker has been singled out because he is not a 'yes man' he has an opinion (not the erac way i fear).

I agree .... good luck mate!

if you had bothered to read the posts, you would have realised that this is exactly the point!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

i would imagine rookers angle with directline (if this is even half true) is that he only did what is common practice. this doesnt make it right, rooker was just sacked because they had to be seen to do something when dl higlighted the 'billing issue'.

..but in real terms (ie- with a degree of honesty) he 100% deserved to get fired.

as for his posts as the 8 moss... dont even get me started on that! idiot.

fuck sake will everyone pls stop calling rooker the 8 moss. rooker was sacked in june and the 8 moss continiues to suck green cock through july aug and in early september if he is taking them to court do u think he will still be sucking their cock. i know who the 8 moss is and he's in u4b.

i agree rooker can't be the 8moss he still works for erac he knew to much about my branch last week don't know who it is though but he's as thick as shit.

has anyone heard the gossip about a final written warning going out to 6 branch managers next week due to a mystry shopper. a friend at hr reckons that displinary action after a mystery shopper is illegal. can anyone help i'm shitting one.