Canal & River Trust secures funding to create waterway roles for young people

[Guest]

Just now, Leggers do it lying down said:

Cheap labor, then a kick up the ar~e!...I was on such a "scheme" in the 80's!...Y.T.S.

So you say.

 

As I said one can't create long term full time permanent jobs out of thin air.

 

(I've added the long term bit to make it a bit clearer).

 

 

[noone]

2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

So you say.

 

As I said one can't create long term full time permanent jobs out of thin air.

 

(I've added the long term bit to make it a bit clearer).

 

 

You can if you dont pay out bonuses to those already pocketing £200k+  a year! ?

[Guest]

Just now, Leggers do it lying down said:

You can if you dont pay out bonuses to those already pocketing £200k+  a year! ?

Breakdown and evidence of who got what please.

 

(Not simple anecdote)

[noone]

Just now, The Happy Nomad said:

Breakdown and evidence of who got what please.

 

(Not simple anecdote)

Take a look a crt's annual report!!! ?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Leggers do it lying down said:

Take a look a crt's annual report!!! ?

With a cursory look I can find 1 possibly 2. Are there more? because to fund full time permanent long term jobs one would need to cull more than one or two persons bonus.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[noone]

The remuneration during the year for Richard Parry, Chief Executive, comprised a salary of £188,456 (2018/19: £184,784), pension allowance of £16,239 (2018/19: £15,928), car allowance of £9,768 (2018/19: £9,768), payment in lieu of previous years’ banked holidays not taken £nil (2018/19: £2,135) and benefits in kind of £1,746 (2018/19: £1,540), totalling £216,209 (2018/19: £214,155).There was one employee whose remuneration during the year was higher than the chief executive. Stuart Mills, Chief Investment Officer, received a salary of £172,254 (2018/19: £168,875), pension allowance of £14,848 (2018/19: £14,557), car allowance of £9,768 (2018/19: £9,768), performance related pay of £33,975 (2018/19: £33,575) and benefits in kind of £2,656 (2018/19: £2,217), totalling £233,501 (2018/19: £228,992).

 

£55,275.00 That's 3x minimum wage salaries from just these 2.

[noone]

2 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

can't create long term full time permanent jobs out of thin air.

For my next trick,I will produce a feather duster from my ar*e ?

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Leggers do it lying down said:

 

 

£55,275.00 That's 3x minimum wage salaries from just these 2.

Wow, 

 

A whole 3.

 

You have also included car allowances which are NOT bonuses,

Edited December 12, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

So you say.

 

As I said one can't create long term full time permanent jobs out of thin air.

 

(I've added the long term bit to make it a bit clearer).

 

 

But it's permanent jobs that the system needs if it's going to survive, because you then get employee commitment and experience. You don't if you outsource or just get students in the vacs, or the equivalent of YOP schemes.  A few million quid might have been saved with a bloke always on site at Todbrook, or walking the towpath and checking/fixing the sluices on the T&M a year or three back. I know it won't happen, but it's a shame.

[noone]

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Wow, 

 

A whole 3.

Yea....sod it,its only 3 lives changed for the better.

[Guest]

Just now, Leggers do it lying down said:

Yea....sod it,its only 3 lives changed for the better.

Except it isn't three (from bonuses), look again.

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But it's permanent jobs that the system needs if it's going to survive, because you then get employee commitment and experience. You don't if you outsource or just get students in the vacs, or the equivalent of YOP schemes.  A few million quid might have been saved with a bloke always on site at Todbrook, or walking the towpath and checking/fixing the sluices on the T&M a year or three back. I know it won't happen, but it's a shame.

This of course is not in doubt.

 

But they still need paying for.

[noone]

2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Except it isn't three (from bonuses), look again.

This of course is not in doubt.

 

But they still need paying for.

I think my point has been made.??

[Guest]

Just now, Leggers do it lying down said:

I think my point has been made.??

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

You have suggested that 3 jobs can be created from bonuses by using erroneous figures.

 

[Guest]

 

It's also an overly simplistic argument to suggest that jobs should be created by axing senior management bonuses because it doesn't take into account the impact on recruitment and retention of senior managers.

 

Now one can debate the whole issue of the capability of the current senior managers at the Trust (which is done ad nauseum on here) but it's fact that PRP or 'bonuses' are a feature of all sectors including public/private/ and charities but it is also a fact that in order to recruit people at that level you do have to compete with equivalent organisations.

 

Yes you can stop paying it but people will move on to where it is paid. 

 

And to those that subscribe to the view that say Parry is not capable - all you will likely get then is somebody even less so.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 - all you will likely get then is somebody even less so.

 

 

I don't think there is anyone alive who could fall in that category.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I don't think there is anyone alive who could fall in that category.

I could certainly nominate the former Chief Executive of Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust, Simon Wright.

 

 

[twbm]

19 hours ago, soforene said:

Boooo...

All you hear about these days is what a hard time the "yoof" are having.

Get in the queue boys and girls and once you've paid into the pot you can look at getting something out of it......

 

What about us wrinklies.

Whilst I still have a few teeth and hair follicles I'd like some of that government cash to help me follow my life's dream.

The ballet dancing's out on account of my varicose veins but I could train to be a brickie (as long as it's not too parky outside) or something like that.

 

Bloody Snowflakes ....... ?

 

If you're as old as you infer, you've had your chance during the 60's 70's and 80's to put some money aside whilst things were still affordable and there were still a few jobs about, and blown it.  

[noone]

4 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

It's also an overly simplistic argument to suggest that jobs should be created by axing senior management bonuses because it doesn't take into account the impact on recruitment and retention of senior managers.

 

Now one can debate the whole issue of the capability of the current senior managers at the Trust (which is done ad nauseum on here) but it's fact that PRP or 'bonuses' are a feature of all sectors including public/private/ and charities but it is also a fact that in order to recruit people at that level you do have to compete with equivalent organisations.

 

Yes you can stop paying it but people will move on to where it is paid. 

 

And to those that subscribe to the view that say Parry is not capable - all you will likely get then is somebody even less so.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

 

https://civilsocietyfutures.org/beginning-end-charity-sector/

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Leggers do it lying down said:

https://civilsocietyfutures.org/beginning-end-charity-sector/

And?

[Arthur Marshall]

6 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Except it isn't three (from bonuses), look again.

This of course is not in doubt.

 

But they still need paying for.

As I pointed out if you'd read to the end of the post,  if there had been a bloke keeping an eye on Todbrook, they would have saved enough dosh to employ him and a fair few others for a year or six. Same on the T&M if they'd had someone to grease the inoperable sluices. It's catastrophe management. In effect, it's management of decline  and probable closures - which is what BW wanted, of course, many, many years ago. I can't imagine that another major breach or reservoir collapse could find funding. It isn't even certain that Todbrook will, which would leave the upper Peak and Macc subject to longterm closures.

As far as Mr Parry goes, as I pointed out in a small and scurrilous ditty, he knows an awful lot about trains. The railways only found one use for the canals...

Edited December 12, 2020 by Arthur Marshall

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As I pointed out if you'd read to the end of the post,  if there had been a bloke keeping an eye on Todbrook, they would have saved enough dosh to employ him and a fair few others for a year or six. Same on the T&M if they'd had someone to grease the inoperable sluices. It's catastrophe management. In effect, it's management of decline  and probable closures - which is what BW wanted, of course, many, many years ago. I can't imagine that another major breach or reservoir collapse could find funding. It isn't even certain that Todbrook will, which would leave the upper Peak and Macc subject to longterm closures.

As far as Mr Parry goes, as I pointed out in a small and scurrilous ditty, he knows an awful lot about trains. The railways only found one use for the canals...

They cannot be at every location posing a risk.

[noone]

57 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

And?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/and

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Leggers do it lying down said:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/and

Yes I am aware of the meaning of the word.

 

That is not exactly what I was meaning though.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:

They cannot be at every location posing a risk.

According to one employee I met the other year, they walk the entire network every fortnight. Seemed a bit unlikely to me, but even if they do, they certainly don't report or even notice half the problems. Presumably because they have to cover too big an area too fast. It makes you wonder how the canal companies ever survived, with lock keepers and lengthsmen.

Isn't it Parkinson's second law, that after time, an organisation becomes more concerned with keep itself going instead of actually concentrating on the business it was set up to do? So nice offices  lots of staff, signage and good publicity becomes much more important than the network itself? CRT could quite happily expand without boats, lock and cesspits messing up their finance sheet. That's why you can have it run by a bloke who ran the Tube  or the Post Office. And, of course, reverting to the subject,  why it's more important to wangle half a million quid (or whatever) for a bit of good publicity wasting a few kids time for a few weeks (and that of the poor buggers on the ground who have to look after them instead of doing their real jobs) than trying to wangle half a million quid so all the lock paddles go up and down.

Of course, I may be wrong.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

According to one employee I met the other year, they walk the entire network every fortnight. Seemed a bit unlikely to me, but even if they do, they certainly don't report or even notice half the problems. Presumably because they have to cover too big an area too fast. It makes you wonder how the canal companies ever survived, with lock keepers and lengthsmen.

Isn't it Parkinson's second law, that after time, an organisation becomes more concerned with keep itself going instead of actually concentrating on the business it was set up to do? So nice offices  lots of staff, signage and good publicity becomes much more important than the network itself? CRT could quite happily expand without boats, lock and cesspits messing up their finance sheet. That's why you can have it run by a bloke who ran the Tube  or the Post Office. And, of course, reverting to the subject,  why it's more important to wangle half a million quid (or whatever) for a bit of good publicity wasting a few kids time for a few weeks (and that of the poor buggers on the ground who have to look after them instead of doing their real jobs) than trying to wangle half a million quid so all the lock paddles go up and down.

Of course, I may be wrong.

It's late. I'll have a look in the morning and when not on my phone.