I think so, the evidence to date indicates a complete disdain for this widow's position.
Maybe I should be more generous of spirit?
Should I believe that he was genuinely intending to keep me informed? That some significant event made it impossible Barclays to decide what to do? Made it impossible for Barclays to communicate, to send an email or make a telephone call?
As Paul might say - "We'll see."
Maybe the recent high profile exposure of the Barclay's chief executive, Jes Staley has upset the Barclays Team. Finding out your chief is too stupid to understand the rules of corporate life must be distressing. Nobody likes working for a fool - even a highly paid fool. But Barclays have had a long line of alleged fools at the top. Did anyone ever believe for one moment that the need to protect the identity of whistleblowers was not clearly understood at Barclays? Barclays has a history of whistleblowers exposing corporate misdeeds. One would need very rosy lenses indeed to believe that any top executive be be unaware of the recent history . A history that is readily available for all to read. Barclays also has a reputation for firing whistleblowers, speaking out about corporate failings is unwise.
Barclays is also the organisation with an executive, Andrew Tinney who destroyed documents that were inconvenient and then lied about doing so.
OK, so some people might say it's unfair of me to drag up a three year old Daily Mail article.
But is it really? What this week's latest revelations about Staley indicate is that the corporate culture is still rancid. If there have been any changes to 'The BarclaysWay' they have not been enough to ensure Barclays is led by persons with a healthy combination of ethics and intelligence. The stupidity was still evident in 2015, when a whistleblower was lied to and then copied in to a memo proving he was lied to.
The Daily Mail might sensationalise the news but Tinney was a senior executive who shredded the only copy of a document and then lied about it. This is relevant to my situation, it shows precedence, indicates that a Barclays employee may destroy a document and lie about it.
Barclays claim that they did not receive Paul's instruction to act in January 2016 and that this is the reason the corporation are refusing to pay me his pension monies. I have a copy of the communication sent but Barclays claim not to received it.
If a Barclays chief executive can shred a document to avoid the consequences that could arise from the findings reported then is it beyond our comprehension to imagine a situation whereby some lesser mortal working in the bank might destroy a communication rather than admit that they had failed to action a service request?
The Barclays culture is one that rewards deceptive unethical behaviour. In Tinney's case to the tune of £5 million;
"But Mr Tinney, 46, shredded the only hard copy and ensured that its contents were not entered into the Barclays computer system.
Last Monday, his colleagues learned that he had quit as chief operating officer of Barclays Wealth, where he received a package worth around £5 million a year in salary, bonus, share options and incentive payments."If my husband had not been an honest, decent and ethical man I might have been a wealthy woman now. This notion that Paul could somehow have made us wealthy by stealth is not just fantasy. During his career with Barclays Paul was a systems programmer with access to the data flowing through the computers. There are many ways that such bank data could have been utilised dishonestly, but Paul was honest.
Do I just need to be patient?
Just Accept that if Barclays ever feel they want to deal with me then they will?
Barclays are the bullies in the playground who can make my life miserable, and that's just what they are doing. Do they expect me to die quietly and shred the Barclays correspondence before I go?
No comments:
Post a Comment