Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Lord Sugar breathes relief as Stella's punt flops

12th Apr 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Lord Sugar has been through the nightmare scenario feared by SMEs up and down the land - a speciosu employment tribunal claim. His comment that he was worried about losing on a technicality is a chilling reminder for all us entrepreneurs out there that there are a lot of ungrateful employees out there.

By all means protect vulnerable employees but the system needs a root and branch overhaul to stop the compensation and blackmail culture that prevents job creation. Many cases are lost by employers solely on technicalities and that is not why the rules exist.

I can't work out why she was so reckless given her sterling performance on the show - she'll have to go self employed now because only a lemming would take her on . Mind you , she could apply to the public sector - after all it's not their money at stake , is it ?

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
13th Apr 2013 11:38

On the other hand - always believed something suspect ....

With Alan Sugar's motives for this show

After all offering a £100K salary to untried/tested people is probably disproportinate to their worth on day 1

However, in terms of advertising for himself & his organisation the value is unparalleled - where else could you get the sort of coverage this show obtains for only £100K. Try buying TV advertising space for X slots of 1 hour and see what the real cost comes to

In this respect he is using these youngsters as a tradeable commodity to further his own ends - in other circumstances it could be termed exploitation

Just look at some of Mr Sugars comments

'.. He told the tribunal he was being paid back for his kindness by “having to come here and humiliate myself in front of the national media” ..' - the arrogance of the man; what on earth does he think the youngsters do on his show to get his attention?

'.. He added: “I’m here because I have principles and I’m not just going to pay off people ..' - but he is prepared to exploit the youngsters for his own advertising purposes. I am surprised Mr Sugar can even spell the word 'principles'

All in all, one can quite believe (maybe a grain of truth) that these jobs to the winners are non-jobs because they are cheap at the price; bearing in mind the publicity gained by Mr Sugar

Of course we need to nail the compensation culture and the verdict was probably correct - but that does not exhonorate Mr Sugar for his own behaviour

Thanks (0)
By Roger.Thornton
13th Apr 2013 14:35

Actually

I'd like to see Lord Sugar taken to the cleaners, he conned enough people over the years with his cheap tacky products.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
15th Apr 2013 08:54

Cheap products

Cheap and tacky or "you get what you pay for" ?

Something of a difference between that and "conning" people

I don't think he deserves to be hung out to dry - as far as I can see he's kept his nose clean . Whether one likes his style or not , well that's something else

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
15th Apr 2013 10:35

I agree FS...

I wonder how long it is before she appears as the 'face' of some publicly funded organisation that supports business growth (or some other 'B...S...' organisation that generally adds little/no value to the micro businesses within the community).

 

Its ashame she didn't use some of her apparent skills to make a position at the business in question....if your ambitious then you may find you start at the bottom (but take the opportunity with both hands) and then work to show off your use to the company.

 

As for Lord Sugar...i suspect he had no issues in treading on a few people on his way up (but more power to him if that was the case)

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
15th Apr 2013 10:51

Treading on people

Regrettably for the majority of successful entrepreneurs I suspect they make a habit of trampling those who stand in their way .  They will tell you that "that's business"  , although it doesn't have to be that way if your moral compass is properly calibrated .

I suspect that Stella is now a toxic brand and only a foolhardy employer will engage her

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
15th Apr 2013 11:14

I am sure

there are some occasions where treading on people cannot be avoided (especially when you have a mortgage to pay for and children to feed)...as for Stella - 'foolhardy' and public sector sit well together - she will probably front up the next tax avoidance campaign or something....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
15th Apr 2013 11:22

Flying close to the wind ...

Probably a harsh assessment - nevertheless ...

Hard he may be, but this term can only be applied to his peers - when applied to his juniors it is often termed bullying! This applies just as much to a far superior legal team with infinate resources as anything else, although the girl was ill-advised to take the approach she did and instead not used him & moved on

Frankly, in my opinion the man is a bully bordering on a thug; moreover he is morally & ethically bankrupt, thinking it is acceptable to humiliate others to further his own ends. Yes, those on the show maybe brats but that is no reason to treat them as he does - and don't forget that the girl in question was previously employed by a bank at £80+K so actually it was not as though she had come from nowhere

With this in mind, the question has to be - what did she believe was being promised and was a £15K pay hike (relatively small) enough to make the jump based  her understanding of Mr Sugars promises - clearly the girl thought so; which is probably why she took this action when in her mind Mr S did not honour his commitment

Anyway seem to recall there was an historic issue with Mr Sugar appointment as 'Enterprise Tsar' whilst running his reality show - naturally he brushed off the charges and carried on

'.. Sir Alan says he considers the advisory role to be "politically neutral" ..'

Although, he seems to have rather missed the point with that comment - surely it was about gaining undue advantage over competitors by being 'Enterprise Tsar' at the same time as running his own promotional television series (conflict of interest)?

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
15th Apr 2013 15:41

Apprentices

The way the contestants are treated is part of the show . I have no sympathy for the losers - shrinking violets don't apply for such a "process" , which is the word Alan Sugar uses to describe the whole shebang.

I can only assume she wanted a career change or the hope of rising within the Sugar empire.

Running the television series or being the Enterprise Tsar is unlikely to have brought him any financial gain. As a Labour peer and lifelong Labour supporter I see this as making his role less neutral if anything.

So far I have worked out the eventual winner from the 1st 2 or 3 episodes so perhaps the main worry is that it all so predictable and certain individuals are only kept on for entertainment purposes . But isn't that the whole point ?

Thanks (0)