Ridiculous
Monday, April 13th, 2009
In her attempt to defend Ms. Jane Barrameda’s continued stay as General Manager of Casureco II, after the latter was given a preventive suspension by the cooperative’s Board of Directors last March 27, Dy incorrectly argued that Casureco II management is not bound by the decisions of its Board of Directors. It is incorrect for one of the practical consequences of that argument, perhaps unintended by Dy, is to declare as inutile the policy-making and direction-setting body of the cooperative. If, for argument’s sake, this is true, then the costly meetings and costlier fees and allowances of the present Board and all PAST ones, have and had been unjustified expenses. Consequently, it behooves upon the Casureco II management to justify and take responsibility for the costs incurred for maintaining an inutile and useless appendage.
In other words, Dy’s above argument in defending the present management led by Barrameda leads to a position more detrimental to her cause since it imposes a “guilt” of graver irregularities.
Similarly, the argument that Casureco II is ultimately under the authority of the NEA, and thus, the latter’s personnel can only be suspended or removed by NEA authority, leads to the conclusion that Casureco II personnel are NEA employees, and as such, are government employees. Were this the case, however, then Casureco II employees WOULD have the right to demand that their salaries be set according to government standardization. More precisely, following the above claim, Casureco II employees SHOULD have the right that their salaries be set according to government standardization.
This is not the case, however. In fact, this has never been the case.
If Dy continues to insist such ridiculous argumentation, then she should be prepared to explain to Casureco II employees why their salaries and benefits are not the same as those of NEA’s.
Technorati Tags: Bikol News News
Vox Bikol Editions
- 1 of 7
- ››
Comments
العاب العاب بنات العاب بنات
rosetta stone spanish