Ultimately I think Scrum needs to be for the team, and the process should be defined by the team. If pointing stories isn't working then the team can stop doing it (we pay it lip service, but that's about it). But you do need some way to agree on what's to be done and who's going to do it.
If somebody with high status doesn't meet expectations we tend to think the problem is with the expectations; if they are low status we tend to think the problem is with the person.
In the same way the high status employee has a lot more say over the way story points are allocated and how the work is allocated.
I've been low-status before despite being just as good as everyone else in the team and I've also been high-status despite being one of the worst in the team.
When you are low status people focus on your mistakes. When you are high status people look at your successes and overall contribution.
OK, having the right people manage might be better. Can you point me to an institution that's managed to consistently pull that one off?
Sure, hoards of shops founded and run by developers with PM's who have actually done the grunt (coding) work in the past.
I've noticed that this problem usually pops up when the PMP certified suits end up managing technical staff.