tags: employment, politics
Correct me if I am wrong, but has Wolfowitz been in trouble for only a month or so? How many of you have had a job that you could quit due to political reasons, rather than rent reasons? And does that make those people more ethical than the rest of us? I certainly never have had a job in my life I could leave on a moment's notice (and for political reasons) and I suspect that most of you haven't, either;
Kevin Kellems said an ongoing scandal surrounding his boss made it difficult for him to remain effective in his role at the Washington-based institution.
Oh, cry me a river.
Mr Kellems, who had also worked with Mr Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, is expected to leave his post next week.
"Given the current environment surrounding the leadership of the World Bank, it is very difficult to be effective in helping to advance the mission of the institution," Mr Kellems said. [story].
If a person accepts a job knowing who they are working for, as Kellems did, I would think that they wouldn't quit with only a one-week notice. I would think that simply doing your job until your suddenly-awful boss was fired would be sufficient. But hey, maybe I am wrong, considering that I have never in my life had a job that did better than to cover my basic living expenses -- if that. I mean, is this guy a professional?? I guess not!
"Kevin is known among his colleagues for his emphasis on team-building and mentoring, and for his work ethic and grace under pressure," said Marwan Muasher, senior vice president, external affairs at the World Bank.
Quitting is "grace under pressure"?
I guess it's neither here nor there, since this guy obviously earns enough to quit on a moment's notice, but this serves as an example that underlines the great class divide in America between the haves and the have-nots: the have-nots would have to line up a job to go to before they quit, and that takes months to do, or longer -- much longer.
- Log in to post comments
I always wonder about those who "resign in protest" over something that's going on at work. I know a few people at the EPA have resigned in protest, and I believe some folks over at the FDA did as well, when Bush appointed a veterinarian to oversee the women's health division. Not that I don't understand where they're coming from, but man, it'd be nice to be able to resign in protest.
And on the heels of Kevin Kellems resignation, I found this - World Bank panel finds Wolfowitz guilty of conflict of interest: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/World_Bank_panel_finds_Wolfowitz_guilty_0…
My guess is that Kevin Kellems is pretending to leave on principle because he suspects that he'll be booted out about 50 seconds after wolfie is kicked out and that he isn't due a severance package as he is a contractor and not on staff.
As for being able to afford to quit, he can probably afford to retire. The world bank (and the IMF for that matter) is expert at enriching "independent" consultants who have the right connections (political or familial).
I am assuming that wolfie will be kicked out (with a big severance package for his sterling services to date) and his girlfriend will re-join the bank as a VP on circa US$200,000/year + bonuses.
The only principle that would cause me to leave a job immediately is not being paid on time (as yet, I haven't worked in a job where they've asked me to drown puppies or kills birds or steal food out of the mouths of the hungry or similar unconsionable acts).
As the "mission" in practice of the world bank is to make the poor poorer whilst enriching former politicos and their boy/girlfriends & brown nosers I am shocked by the reason he profers; he and wolfie are exemplars of the world banks actual actions.
Perhaps you should apply for his job, and promise that you won't resign at the drop of a mad hatter.
Bob