Well said! thanks for bringing this discussion back to what it is really about – the pain and hurt causes by SMC.
We can have all the esoteric arguments about democracy, but the point is people have been hurt, and the leadership of the organization at the centre of all the concerns couldn’t care less.
@Kelvin – there are a number of points I would like to comment upon. You say:
I would agree with you [rrmoderator]and @ThePetitor that there seems to be an issue with the airing of
Well, indeed. Add that to the list of grievances in Chesterk55’s post and we have a very serious problem. What are your respectable friends in SMC doing about it? Remember the adage that Mr Black used to quote, “For evil to abound, all it takes is good men to do nothing”. Well, any action points?
I guess it is no one's interests that this forum is the route to do it.
Have you read the testimonies on this site? Many, many people have said the opportunity to share their pain and to realise they are not alone in their experience has been very beneficial. How can you further condemn these people – after the pain they have already been through – by telling them this forum is of no benefit? I know I personally have found it of great benefit. It has helped me understand that I am not alone and it is not necessarily all my fault. Do you know what is it like to live with that for 20 or more years? Most of the contributors on this forum do.
I would even go as far as suggesting this forum is of benefit to SMC itself. I don’t think they knew of the impact they were having on people’s lives. If there are any people worthy of respect in the organisation then they surely didn’t know of all the issues listed by Chesterk55. So here is the opportunity for them to wake up and smell the coffee. Come on leaders of SMC – you can now see the big picture, possibly for the first time. Everyone was working in isolation and you perhaps didn’t see the pattern. Well, it is here now in plain sight – what are you going to do?
Of course, no-one would be positively in favour of authoritarianism.
You are so wrong about that, and it demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of what is being said here and in SMC itself. The whole point is the leaders of Struthers ARE positively in favour of authoritarianism
As for “no-one has actually (I hope) claimed they were physically unable to leave SMC”
It is much worse than that – if you were physically unable to leave, you might still have a chance of escape, or might be rescued. Just read the testimonies on these pages. People are emotionally trapped – they have been told that even to attend another church is falling away from God and putting them in danger of hellfire. Many, many have felt unable to take that step to freedom when put under such emotional pressure. Some have been subjected to exorcism to “cure” them of the contamination they have suffered by attending other churches.
Yes, people have to engage their brains, but we also engage our emotions. People are in a position that they are told that engaging their brain is unspiritual, they see others publicly castigated for leaving and are told it is the worst thing they can do.
I do see your point about apparent favouritism, but I also note that Roman Catholic schools in Scotland are allowed to discriminate on the basis of which Church their staff attend. They are doing nothing illegal.
That is factually inaccurate. RC schools are allowed to insist that teachers will be able to deliver the full RC curriculum and this includes things like morning prayers. If a person is not willing to take part in these RC activities, they will be employed. That is very different from nepotism. You may agree or disagree with it, but it is at least open and transparent. Everyone knows in advance what the criteria are and can chose whether to apply.
You quote cbarb saying
@cbarb;Based on what you have said, I wonder if your problem is actually with a few individuals?
YOUR problem? I guess that is open to various meaning, but it come across to me as condescending. It is not cbarb’s problem, it is SMC that has a problem. Even if it is “just a few people”, so what? What if it is just a grievance against one person, is that not worthy of investigation? If all of those on this site have a grievance against, “just a few people” it adds up to quite a lot – and I suspect it would be the same few people anyway, as all of the power is concentrated in the few at the top.
If indeed the answer to complaints was as you state, then the leader in question has certainly not been reading "How to win friends and influence people" (understatement) .
This is an interesting one – “if the leader in question” (singular). Where did that come from, I wonder? I think you are being fed a line from your respectable friends on Struthers – “don’t worry, it was only an isolated incident. Nothing to worry about" That was certainly not my meaning. Telling people it is unspiritual to ask questions is a verifiable, consistent philosophy in SMC. It is the only method they know for dealing with complaints – that is why there is a need for things like this website.
Just ask your learned friends if there are any records of any grievances or complaints at all – even just one written record.
There would need to be a filter on trivial and vexatious complaints however.
Really? How would that work? I presume that is complaints that the leaders judge in their infinite wisdom are trivial. I don’t see anything about that approach on the ACAS website, and I certainly don’t think most of the complaints listed here are trivial.
As for vexatious complaint, that might be OK if the complaints had been dealt with in the first place, but that has not happened. The grievances have not been dealt with. Many companies do have policies about vexatious complaints, but they are always at the end of a process – the grievance has to be heard first, you cannot simply ignore someone and refuse to speak to them then try to portray it as the fault of the complainer.
This is all just nonsense. You have said you need to hear both sides of the argument, but you are then saying that some complaints can be dismissed out of hand for being trivial or vexatious. How can you make that decision without listening to both sides? You can’t. You don’t know whether a complain should be upheld or not until it is investigated. With the SMC policy that it is always someone else’s fault, this is never going to happen.In all of this, the story is the same – do not address the question, find a way to blame the questioner. So, if there are mistakes in the accounts, lets not look at them, oh no, lets instead blame the person who has dared to raise the issues.
If there are grievances raised, lets not deal with them either, lets either say they are too trivial to be considered or two outrageously unbelievable to be considered.
If that doesn’t work we could blame the person concerned for being emotionally unstable, or for being vexatious, or for not being spiritual enough, but please, lets not look at the actual issue.
We will then ask “how would anyone know some of the more wild claims on here are "factual". That should stump them – there is no point in having any sort of investigation or examination, as no-one can never actually know anything – it is all existential anyway.
If there is one we can’t avoid, we will say it was just an isolated incident and it was due to some sort of minor and understandable mistake, but we still won’t actually look at what happened. Oh no, it is not possible that even one of the issues needs to be examined. Definitely not.
That seems to me to be the thrust of your arguments – always find a reason to avoid actually examining the issue.