4 ms·
I'd be a little harsher on the people who hired her honestly. It sounds like a systemic organizational failure, and while I certainly don't think the lady is bl
by AcerbicZero 7y ago
I'd be a little harsher on the people who hired her honestly. It sounds like a systemic organizational failure, and while I certainly don't think the lady is blameless here, the failure of those entrusted with spending public money and hiring her should be facing some serious criticism.
- munk-a 7y agoThe system worked this out with minimal damage (22k was paid out before the fraud was discovered) why should more labour be dedicated to detect such a trivial and rare error? If this sort of thing is rampant in australia then it'd make sense, but the detection of her fraud definitely cost less than beefing up reference checking to be in depth on everyone.
- bilbo0s 7y ago>why should more labour be dedicated to detect such a trivial and rare error? What is the data indicating this error is "rare" in the organization in question?
- munk-a 7y agoIt was news worthy and neither the article nor anything I've seen described this as a common or repeated occurrence, the article is pretty poor in quality but I think it's reasonable to read it as implying that this was a rather outstanding event. It is somewhat hard to judge but it seems a reasonable reading.
- bilbo0s 7y agoThis is a massive fail. Right now they should be reviewing the background checks of everyone in the entire enterprise, as all of those people were subject also to the same obviously lax scrutiny. Starting with leadership and those in sensitive roles. HR employees directly responsible for scrutiny in this particular case should be punished to include, at a minimum, placement on probation. (I agree with AcerbicZero though, I'd prefer they be fired.)