Kudos to the brilliant @m_clem & many others, condemning Gilead's/ World Bank's decision to overlook sexual harassment.
But as I've always said, naming and shaming is not enough. We need independent external review of all organisations, to hold them accountable & curb abuse. https://twitter.com/BerkOzler12/status/1018019214286868480 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
Replying to @_alice_evans @m_clem
In this case it seems like it was the independent external review which made this ' call! The World Bank's response *was* to fired him, and they defended that decision to the tribunal. The tribunal ruled they should reinstate.pic.twitter.com/W9orcpK9o6
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @_alice_evans
Thank you for this clarification. The Tribunal is part of the governance structure of the Bank. If the owners of Nestlé had consultants oblige the CFO to take some action, it would not be wrong to say that “Nestlé” did this.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @m_clem @_alice_evans
Sure but consultants are not the same thing as a panel of independents appointed on fixed terms. Presumably there is little the Bank's owners (aka the govts) or the Directors can do to influence the tribunal judges (and that's how we would want it)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MForstater @_alice_evans
Thank you. The owners created the process, they are responsible for the results of that process, and they do act in the Bank’s name.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @m_clem @_alice_evans
I don't think so. They are responsible for the design of the process and choosing the panelists. For the panel to be independent it has to be free to make it own decisions free from interference or incentives which can be manipulated.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
So perhaps they picked the wrong people or the panels design is wrong, but I don't think we can conclude this from one decision. Would need to see if the panels decisions are systematically awry
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
If the tribunal went thru due process on a case & came to a decision we agree w, I think we'd all be up in arms if govts stepped in and overruled it (or pulled strings behind scenes to change it). So I feel uncomfortable saying that they should for a decision I disagree with
-
-
I know what you mean. The structure and process has to allow for more than one outcome. Whether work based HR processes need Ind external scrutiny is a separate and really big Q. Perhaps make more use of existing Courts and legal structure?
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.