As the Well-Being Australia and a former railwayman, now the Footplate Padre, Lisa Pryor's article in the Sydney Morning Herald jumped out, particularly this part:
"The issue at stake is not simply the ability of individual politicians to conduct saucy private lives. It is about the quality of people attracted to office. When a minister can keep his job regardless of how badly he performs, then lose it over failings which have nothing to do with their work, can we really be surprised when the only people willing to go into politics will eventually be ideologues, masochists, fruit loops and incompetents?"
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/how-many-journos-would-like-a-dose-of-their-own-medicine-20100528-wlbd.html
This portion of the quotation was worth pondering: "When a minister can keep his job regardless of how badly he performs, then lose it over failings which have nothing to do with their work."
The question posed was how this applied to situations of other professionals?
For example, what about school teachers? There are calls for good teachers to be rewarded with higher salary packages. This sounds wonderful and laudable, but no one has quite yet found a formula to point out a bad teacher without the fear if being sued.
Is a bad teacher someone who is lumped with low achieving students? Perhaps the best teachers should be put with such classes. But how would you describe a 'best teacher'? In the State system of education no one ever loses their job on the basis of 'how badly they perform'. The system finds some other excuse 'which has nothing to do with their work'.
All systems which are based on 'seniority' for promotion are subject to this same problem. When initiating a career as a locomotive engineman in the sixties, the rate of promotion had nothing to do with his abilities associated with driving a multi-million dollar diesel locomotive, but was based solely on seniority. When a locomotive fireman's appointment came up, the next person on the 'Acting Fireman' seniority list got the promotion.
To get rid of a locomotive driver who had been on the railways for twenty or thirty years, and who therefore had considerable seniority, could never be achieved on the basis of 'poor driving performance'. It would inevitably be some other 'excuse'.
Now, closer to home, there are Christians Ministers who fall into this same category. There is a spiritual issue which makes it difficult for those in authority to remove someone who is no longer performing adequately, as there is a Biblical principle that one should never come against the Lord's anointed.
However, sadly, many a Minister would fit the profile of the very elderly saintly Reverend who died at his post as described in the inaugural hilarious Vicar of Dibley series, where the congregation had been waiting for him to 'pop off' for many a long year.
In Parish situations where Ministers are appointed by church hierarchy, there is a 'devil' of a job to get rid of them, and even in the situations where the congregation makes the 'Call', there is always enough of the congregation who 'like the Minister' so that no decision is made. Sometimes it ends very messily if, in the end, enough people withhold their tithes and offerings that there is no longer the money to pay the stipend.
This becomes the classic case of - "When a minister can keep his job regardless of how badly he performs, then lose it over failings which have nothing to do with their work." There are also times when false charges are bought and when exoneration comes, the perpetrators of 'bad tidings' who walk away without accountability are legion. This is perhaps why Lisa Pryor's quotation hit so forcefully from bitter experience.
However, as a realist, all these situations are complicated and bedevilled with trickery and sleight of hand. In the final reckoning, if someone is wronged (or seems to be wronged) they have to pick themselves up and make the best of the situation – once it has happened there is no return.
However, if someone is seen to not be performing well in their job, or perhaps just not suitable in that particular situation, then it would be better if everyone could be honest and give the real reasons for a dismissal, without fear or favour. Otherwise, as Lisa Pryor concluded, "the only people willing to go into politics (or any other area of responsibility) will eventually be ideologues, masochists, fruit loops and incompetents."
Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd might have a whole lot to say on this discussion!