Hierarchy of a mistake: Gerry Brownlee

Forums › Off topic › Hierarchy of a mistake: Gerry Brownlee

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

18749 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1097898 29-Jul-2014 14:09

ajobbins: Cutting into the front of the screening queue wouldn't have been hard for him, and screening takes literally 30 seconds or less. I doubt 30 seconds would make the difference. If gate staff were willing to let him in a side door, I am sure they would also have been willing to hold the plane another 30 seconds.

Imagine the stink if a politician cut in front of the regular people. In NZ, this would be front page news for a week! They should just allow specifically vetted people to go through the crew (or otherwise designated VIP) check in lanes. Again much cheaper than doing what should already be done, which is to have our PM and his leadership people have use of a plane.

networkn

18749 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1097900 29-Jul-2014 14:12

DonGould:
networkn: As far as I see it, if he was allowed through by a member of security or staff, it is them who have a case to answer not him.

Sorry but I find that unreasonable.

Mr Brownlee is effectively the boss of your orginisation.

It was a question that the boss should not have asked.

From an employment point of view, he asked a staff member to engage in an illegal act on behalf of the company.

Where is it legislated he is their boss ?

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 1097902 29-Jul-2014 14:14

networkn:
DonGould:
networkn: As far as I see it, if he was allowed through by a member of security or staff, it is them who have a case to answer not him.

Sorry but I find that unreasonable.

Mr Brownlee is effectively the boss of your orginisation.

It was a question that the boss should not have asked.

From an employment point of view, he asked a staff member to engage in an illegal act on behalf of the company.

Where is it legislated he is their boss ?

really?

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

networkn

18749 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1097911 29-Jul-2014 14:29

DonGould:
networkn:
DonGould:
networkn: As far as I see it, if he was allowed through by a member of security or staff, it is them who have a case to answer not him.

Sorry but I find that unreasonable.

Mr Brownlee is effectively the boss of your orginisation.

It was a question that the boss should not have asked.

From an employment point of view, he asked a staff member to engage in an illegal act on behalf of the company.

Where is it legislated he is their boss ?

really?

Yes really. He is not their direct employer as far as I understand it. Based on that your analogy is flawed.

Batman

Mad Scientist
19334 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2531

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1097912 29-Jul-2014 14:31

Let's not jump into too many conclusions

Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.

ajobbins

Awesome
4815 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1063

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1097922 29-Jul-2014 14:56

networkn:
ajobbins: Cutting into the front of the screening queue wouldn't have been hard for him, and screening takes literally 30 seconds or less. I doubt 30 seconds would make the difference. If gate staff were willing to let him in a side door, I am sure they would also have been willing to hold the plane another 30 seconds.

Imagine the stink if a politician cut in front of the regular people. In NZ, this would be front page news for a week! They should just allow specifically vetted people to go through the crew (or otherwise designated VIP) check in lanes. Again much cheaper than doing what should already be done, which is to have our PM and his leadership people have use of a plane.

I hear you, but they got that front page for a week news anyway, for a worse reason. While he really should have just been on time, if it was skip the line or break AvSec protocols and skip screening altogether, he should have gone for the line cut. Would have got him on the plane just as fast will less fallout.

Ministers are busy people, and I would be OK with the odd minister skipping to the front of the security queue if need be. Would cost the tax payer more for them to miss the flight.

Twitter: ajobbins

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 1097945 29-Jul-2014 15:47

One person supports this post

networkn: Yes really. He is not their direct employer as far as I understand it. Based on that your analogy is flawed.

With all due respect, I find your comment very naive and immature.

Mr Brownlee has influence at many levels that could well impact on many staff.

If he asked, I would let him past too. You would be a fool not to.

The issue here is that this is a question he simply should not have asked.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 1097946 29-Jul-2014 15:49

ajobbins: Ministers are busy people, and I would be OK with the odd minister skipping to the front of the security queue if need be. Would cost the tax payer more for them to miss the flight.

I am a busy person too most days.

However I agree with you AJ. I wouldn't have so much issue with his cutting to the front of the screening queue. As far as I'm aware it's not breaking the law to queue jump at an airport.

The issue here is that he asked the staff to break the law.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

MikeB4

13587 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6366

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1097948 29-Jul-2014 15:54

A Minister does not have direct or even dotted line employment involvement with staff in entities that his /her portfolio is responsible. That is the responsibility of entity management to CEO/ Secretary level with ultimate oversight by the State Services Commission.

However it would be a brave person who openly refused their Minister.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

Bung

2600 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 364

Reply # 1097967 29-Jul-2014 16:12

DonGould: I wouldn't have so much issue with his cutting to the front of the screening queue. As far as I'm aware it's not breaking the law to queue jump at an airport.

You could argue that as he is boarding the plane currently at the gate it's not even queue jumping. The queue is for other planes.

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 1098014 29-Jul-2014 17:13

KiwiNZ: A Minister does not have direct or even dotted line employment involvement with staff in entities that his /her portfolio is responsible. That is the responsibility of entity management to CEO/ Secretary level with ultimate oversight by the State Services Commission.

However it would be a brave person who openly refused their Minister.

Agreed. It would be a very stupid person.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 1098020 29-Jul-2014 17:18

One person supports this post

Bung:
DonGould: I wouldn't have so much issue with his cutting to the front of the screening queue. As far as I'm aware it's not breaking the law to queue jump at an airport.

You could argue that as he is boarding the plane currently at the gate it's not even queue jumping. The queue is for other planes.

We could argue all sorts of things.

Personally I want to think we live in a country where everyone has equal rights when it comes to government services and that we resource services in a meaningful way.

This is exactly the sort of thing that I was brought up to believe is not New Zealand.

...perhaps it's me that's being naive and immature. I will accept that suggestion if others want to make it.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

sir1963

813 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 360

Reply # 1098066 29-Jul-2014 18:11

DonGould:
networkn: Yes really. He is not their direct employer as far as I understand it. Based on that your analogy is flawed.

With all due respect, I find your comment very naive and immature.

Mr Brownlee has influence at many levels that could well impact on many staff.

If he asked, I would let him past too. You would be a fool not to.

The issue here is that this is a question he simply should not have asked.

Thats like saying the minister for police should not get traffic tickets for speeding.

gzt

10311 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1584

Reply # 1098099 29-Jul-2014 18:54

networkn:
ajobbins: Cutting into the front of the screening queue wouldn't have been hard for him, and screening takes literally 30 seconds or less. I doubt 30 seconds would make the difference. If gate staff were willing to let him in a side door, I am sure they would also have been willing to hold the plane another 30 seconds.

Imagine the stink if a politician cut in front of the regular people. In NZ, this would be front page news for a week! They should just allow specifically vetted people to go through the crew (or otherwise designated VIP) check in lanes. Again much cheaper than doing what should already be done, which is to have our PM and his leadership people have use of a plane.

In USA some politicos are allowed to do this if they are traveling with a personal security detail authorised to make these preflight safety checks on behalf of airline security.

The situation with Brownlee is different. He entirely skipped these safety checks thereby 'potentially' putting other passengers in danger. This is unacceptable behavior from any minister but particularly an aviation minister. That is the real situation that occurred. I don't have a strong view on resignation as a minister entirely that seems like overkill, but I think maintaining the integrity of the office and the confidence of the public demands that he drop the aviation portfolio permanently. He's still got plenty more anyway. I'd guess Key will ~~take it off him~~ assign it to someone else after the election is over anyway for exactly this reason.

I would not support a US style different rules for politicians. If they are going to make rules they can follow them like the rest of us.

DonGould

3889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

Reply # 1098103 29-Jul-2014 18:59

sir1963:
DonGould:
networkn: Yes really. He is not their direct employer as far as I understand it. Based on that your analogy is flawed.

With all due respect, I find your comment very naive and immature.

Mr Brownlee has influence at many levels that could well impact on many staff.

If he asked, I would let him past too. You would be a fool not to.

The issue here is that this is a question he simply should not have asked.

Thats like saying the minister for police should not get traffic tickets for speeding.

Correct. If the minster for police asks an officer not to give him a ticket then that officer should likely consider doing just what these guys did, let the minster move on and then take the issue up with their boss.

As with this issue, the minster for police should not ask not to be given the ticket. The minister should take the ticket and pay it like everyone else!

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7