So I hadn't been paying attention to Young at all since he stopped running. We were focused on the Olympics and what not. Believe it or not, no one on our staff even knew there was an 'independent investigation' going on until we saw a tweet about it a few days ago.
Now I'm getting all riled up yet again.
I just read the statement from Skins and it bothers me.
Here it is:https://www.skins.net/au/rob-young-trans-america-attempt-investigation-media-release
Check this quote out.
"â€œThe report also contains a salutary lesson for SKINS. We placed too many expectations on one staff member and under-estimated the work involved."
And then there is is this from the CEO"s blog.http://watercooler.skins.net/2016/10/02/rob-young-trans-america-run-attempt/?_ga=1.37183651.2082129224.1475175316
"I accept the Pielke/Tucker findings that SKINS, as a company, could have managed this better by having an appropriate level of management and coordination of the run.
"This is not a reflection on the lone SKINS staffer who was present, because it is clear now that it is unfair to expect one person to perform social media duties, support crew and run management and monitoring activity alone, all whilst driving the support vehicle.
"We have learned our lesson from this and will ensure that any future attempt is staffed appropriately."
WHAT THE HELL? Why isn't the employee terminated? Do they have weird termination laws in the UK? I know companies are worried about lawsuits but anyone with a brain would conclude that it's impossible for someone driving the vehicle, whether understaffed or not, to realize that the guy supposedly running behind you wasn't running for miles and miles on end (Most assume he was of course riding in the RV the whole time).
I applaud Skins for actually paying for the report but come on. The employee at a minimum should be fired for incompetence.
If your job is to oversee a project and it goes TERRIBLY wrong, you get the axe. When you terminate him, you don't have to worry about a lawsuit as you terminate him for failing to do his job - you don't have to necessarily say he committed fraud.
Any UK lawyers on here? Comments?