Robin Evans Bonus Targets

[WJM]

MS Word vs. PDF:

 

I consider it extremely rude to send a document as a Word file. Firstly, it makes the assumption that the recipient actually uses Microsoft programs but more importantly MS Word files can carry macro VIRUSES hidden inside them. Fortunately this doesn't actually bother me because I dont use Microsoft products (so the virus is unable to work it's magic on my system) but I consider sending Word files the equivalent of sneezing in another person's face.

 

PDF readers are free - sending PDF is good manners.

[grahoom]

MS Word vs. PDF:

 

I consider it extremely rude to send a document as a Word file. Firstly, it makes the assumption that the recipient actually uses Microsoft programs but more importantly MS Word files can carry macro VIRUSES hidden inside them. Fortunately this doesn't actually bother me because I dont use Microsoft products (so the virus is unable to work it's magic on my system) but I consider sending Word files the equivalent of sneezing in another person's face.

 

PDF readers are free - sending PDF is good manners.

 

agreed, I dislike receiving .doc files.

[Chris Pink]

sending PDF is good manners.

 

Agree completely.

 

It is only the fact that Microsoft give the British government and it's offspring free copies of Office that has made this lazy form of distribution common.

[WJM]

I was just wondering why so many people fork out c£300 to Microsoft for very average word-processing software when there are so many better products available for a fraction of the cost (or even free). Then you reminded me that Microsoft are the most successful software company not through selling good products but through some very vicious and abusive marketing tactics.

 

 

Getting back to the OP - do not get hung up on this Sherlock Holmes investigative work using the audit trail in a MS Word document. It is very easy to modify the audit trail to tell any story you want. You just change the time/date on the PC, do your modifications and save.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I was just wondering why so many people fork out c£300 to Microsoft for very average word-processing software when there are so many better products available for a fraction of the cost (or even free). Then you reminded me that Microsoft are the most successful software company not through selling good products but through some very vicious and abusive marketing tactics.

 

 

Getting back to the OP - do not get hung up on this Sherlock Holmes investigative work using the audit trail in a MS Word document. It is very easy to modify the audit trail to tell any story you want. You just change the time/date on the PC, do your modifications and save.

 

Its not quite that easy as you would end up with a document that was "modified" before it was "created"!

 

However, it can be done and if BW does send me the word file I have requested I will take it into account.

[WJM]

If you want a better tactic, dismantle the file in a powerful text editor and modify absolutely any detail you want. Agreed, what you are looking at is probably a genuine audit trail, but it cannot stand up legally. It is too easy to falsify, by both sides.

[roger]

Proof? At least what he posted on here was under the BW banner and, therefore, accountable.

 

Proof? The clever tatics used to deflect responsibility away from BW's own duties as required under the DDA. Disability Provision was the repsonsibility of Eugene's department, if anyone wants to know.

 

Despite BW's statements on disability (which are clearly a critical part of the justification for BW director bonuses) BW has great failings in adhering to its own beliefs on what should be done under the DDA and the provisions made out according to its own 'Disability Statement.'

 

(On another matter I do remember Eugene's attempts to wheedle BW out of the mess of the Castle Mills/Jericho affair. Those tatics by Eugene struck me as desperate attempts by BW to cover its mis-management and total imcompetence. I dont suppose no-one noticed seeing they had their lovely BW blinkered coloured glasses on?)

[johnthebridge]

Eugene might have been someone to you who was open and accountable, but he wasnt - at least to me. Contrary to most people's popular opinion of him, he was just another expert at BW cover ups. I had a lengthy experience of his expertise at cover ups. Its a very boring subject and one that doesnt grab the attention of many canallers. Dave Mayall might have brought attention to this thread but that doesnt mean he would be an accountable BW director. Do keep up the good work anyway it is time BW stopped practising 'thin ethics.' I'm still keen to learn the whys and wherefores of Robin Evans' bonuses.

Me too.

Recently, I sent an e-mail to DEFRA, asking for someone in that department to explain how and why BW directors' bonus payments were made. The reply I recieved was derisory, and said in effect, "nothing to do with us, contact BW directly". I tried once more, but was fobbed off again. Personally, I don't care what systems are used to "explain" the internal workings of BW. All I'd like is an adequate and honest answer to some straightforward questions, and towards that end, I applaud Alans' efforts.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Jon
Sentence removed at posters request

[Chris J W]

Agree completely.

 

It is only the fact that Microsoft give the British government and it's offspring free copies of Office that has made this lazy form of distribution common.

 

Well they certainly didn't give any vast amounts of free copies of Office to Defra!

[mayalld]

There is a clear conflict in having bonuses linked to consultations.

 

If the bonus was linked to achieving a specific outcome I would agree with you.

 

It was Allan's initial contention that this was the case.

 

The documents he has obtained from BW have failed to back this theory up.

 

Subsequently, we have had it suggested that the documents cleverly fail to be explicit, but that the directors knew how to read between the lines, and now that the supplied documents have been doctored to prevent Allan having the information asked for.

 

Some people are determined to find foul play whether it exists or not.

[Chris Pink]

Some people are determined to find foul play whether it exists or not.

 

 

So what would your view be on the practice of allowing target-linked bonuses in a sector where growth was not possible, such as the management of the waterways?

[mayalld]

So what would your view be on the practice of allowing target-linked bonuses in a sector where growth was not possible, such as the management of the waterways?

 

Bonuses are used as a tool to reward performance. I see no issue with targets.

[Chris Pink]

Bonuses are used as a tool to reward performance. I see no issue with targets.

 

Bonuses in recent years have typically been to reward executives for increased profit-generating revenue in growth orientated businesses.

 

Their use in the public sector where the payment of a bonus is funded by finite revenue is inappropriate.

 

Where do you think the money for the bonuses should come from?

[mayalld]

Bonuses in recent years have typically been to reward executives for increased profit-generating revenue in growth orientated businesses.

 

Their use in the public sector where the payment of a bonus is funded by finite revenue is inappropriate.

 

Where do you think the money for the bonuses should come from?

 

There will be a directors remuneration "pot" in the annual budget. The budgeted amount will be the total salary of all directors, plus the total potential bonus if all targets met, plus NI/pension/benefits. It represents the maximum anticipated cost of remunerating directors.

 

Targets will typically be set in terms of achieving the aims of the organisation at the Chief Exec level, whilst at individual director level, they will be set in terms of contributing to the top level objectives, and in terms of achieving specific tasks that are part of their role.

 

Targets that are not met lead to an underspend on remuneration (DEFRA probably takes the underspend back)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Targets that are not met lead to an underspend on remuneration (DEFRA probably takes the underspend back)

 

DEFRA does not take any salary underspend back. As far as I can determine it is treated as profit and is transferred to Capital Reserve which in the last Annual Report stood at over £250m. BW seem very reticent about what the Capital Reserve is used for (apart from generating some interest) - it certainly does not seem to used for bridging the funding gap or keeping boaters costs under control.

 

The money for paying bonuses comes from tax payers, licence payers and BW' business interests.

 

If, for the sake of argument, we assumed that Robin Evans bonus was paid out of licence fees then every boat owner is paying him about £2 per year.

[Chris Pink]

There will be a directors remuneration "pot" in the annual budget. The budgeted amount will be the total salary of all directors, plus the total potential bonus if all targets met, plus NI/pension/benefits. It represents the maximum anticipated cost of remunerating directors.

 

Targets will typically be set in terms of achieving the aims of the organisation at the Chief Exec level, whilst at individual director level, they will be set in terms of contributing to the top level objectives, and in terms of achieving specific tasks that are part of their role.

 

Targets that are not met lead to an underspend on remuneration (DEFRA probably takes the underspend back)

 

 

Your contention then that the basic salary of the executives is an under-payment so that they only escape fuel poverty if they pull their fingers out?

 

So why not just pay them the amount you thought you would pay them (much like any job) and then sack them if incompetent (ie they don't meet their targets)?

 

As a matter of interest (Allan?) - how many times have bonuses not been paid to BW executives?

 

At a meeting with a couple of upper-mid range BW executives recently the looks they exchanged on the mention of the word 'bonus' was definitely worth a 1,000 words.

 

If a concept such a 'bonus' is so contentious both inside and outside the organisation they should be scrapped. I repeat; they have no place in an public sector organisation such as BW. They will not attract the best people at running canals, they will simply attract the people best at playing the 'corporate' game.

[johnthebridge]

Your contention then that the basic salary of the executives is an under-payment so that they only escape fuel poverty if they pull their fingers out?

 

So why not just pay them the amount you thought you would pay them (much like any job) and then sack them if incompetent (ie they don't meet their targets)?

 

As a matter of interest (Allan?) - how many times have bonuses not been paid to BW executives?

 

At a meeting with a couple of upper-mid range BW executives recently the looks they exchanged on the mention of the word 'bonus' was definitely worth a 1,000 words.

 

If a concept such a 'bonus' is so contentious both inside and outside the organisation they should be scrapped. I repeat; they have no place in an public sector organisation such as BW. They will not attract the best people at running canals, they will simply attract the people best at playing the 'corporate' game.

Agree with every word.

[mayalld]

Your contention then that the basic salary of the executives is an under-payment so that they only escape fuel poverty if they pull their fingers out?

 

So why not just pay them the amount you thought you would pay them (much like any job) and then sack them if incompetent (ie they don't meet their targets)?

 

You seem to be under a misaprehension that performance-related bonuses are something that are only paid to directors of companies, and you further seem to be being disingenuous about what people are paid.

 

I'm not a director by any means, but I am eligible for a performance related bonus of 18% of basic salary.

 

Notwithstanding any pipe dreams that some people may have around the concept of everybody being paid the same, it is never going to happen.

 

There are some jobs that have a large pool of potential post holders, and there are jobs that have a much smaller pool. There is also an inverse relationship between seniority and employment security. The upshot is that the further up the management ladder you go, the bigger the pay pot you have to offer, both to tempt the better people to work for you, and to make up for the fact that the more senior the person, the more likely that they will be chopped for being crap at their job.

 

For example, with my own employer, those on the bottom rung have extraordinarily secure employment, and it would take about 3 years of substandard performace without improvement to be dismissed for non-culpable inefficiency. I would survive no more than 12 months. A very senior manage would be gone in 2-3 months.

 

Now, it would be foolhardy to cough up huge sums of money merely on the hope that you have a good person, so you pay them a basic, and make the rest dependent upon doing the job well.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Your contention then that the basic salary of the executives is an under-payment so that they only escape fuel poverty if they pull their fingers out?

 

So why not just pay them the amount you thought you would pay them (much like any job) and then sack them if incompetent (ie they don't meet their targets)?

 

As a matter of interest (Allan?) - how many times have bonuses not been paid to BW executives?

 

At a meeting with a couple of upper-mid range BW executives recently the looks they exchanged on the mention of the word 'bonus' was definitely worth a 1,000 words.

 

If a concept such a 'bonus' is so contentious both inside and outside the organisation they should be scrapped. I repeat; they have no place in an public sector organisation such as BW. They will not attract the best people at running canals, they will simply attract the people best at playing the 'corporate' game.

 

Payment of bonus is at the discretion of the remuneration committee which is made up of a few part time non-executive directors (excluding the chairman) appointed by ministers. Under the rules of the bonus scheme they may authorise bonus payment up to 30% (40% for Robin Evans) of a directors salary in any one year. They retain absolute discretion regarding bonus payment.

 

I know of no instance of a bonus being withheld. It would seem that all directors get bonus near to the maximum allowed. In one year the remuneration committee broke its own rules and paid a particular director more than 30%.

[AlanJ]

In one year the remuneration committee broke its own rules and paid a particular director more than 30%.

 

Surely, if that director's performance had been good enough to warrant it, then where is the problem? I suspect we do not know the reasons why that director was paid more than 30%.

We live in a world where people at that level are paid based on their performance - if they satisfy the targets for the bonus payout, then pay them.

If the targets are too easy, then that is a question for those setting/agreeing to those targets

[alan_fincher]

:start_rant:

 

Apologies if I jump in without having studied all the detail.

 

As an observation, we know there have been mindlessly stupid wastes of money as the "three square stumps per narrow lock" initiative, as featured in a document that I think was called something like "Customer Service Standards". Putting labels on everything was another thing emanating from those "Standard". The "bollard" thing in particular has been admitted to be misjudged.

 

In my experience, things like meeting "Customer Service Standards" are precisely the kind of thing that get transferred directly to managers objectives, particularly if they can latch onto something "measurable", (i.e. how many locks did we actually manage to install 3 stumps beside this year).

 

So I would not be at all surprised to find bonus payments being made because this kind of objective has been met, even though the original idea was barking.

 

If I am even part right, those responsible need sacking, rather than rewarding simply because they have made their own misjudged ideas part of the way their performance is assessed.

 

:end_rant:

[Pretty Funked Up]

I've seen evidence of his work!!!!

 

neater towpaths and... and neater access from bridges! WOOOOOOOOWW i hear you scream (well scream if yawant to)

 

 

just how much do they get out of local dog walkers and ramblers????

now if the bikers and ramblers were charged fairly surely they'd be rich???? (cmon mayelld, pipedreams aside!, need you t'know!)

Edited December 17, 2008 by Pretty Funked Up

[Allan(nb Albert)]

:start_rant:

 

Apologies if I jump in without having studied all the detail.

 

As an observation, we know there have been mindlessly stupid wastes of money as the "three square stumps per narrow lock" initiative, as featured in a document that I think was called something like "Customer Service Standards". Putting labels on everything was another thing emanating from those "Standard". The "bollard" thing in particular has been admitted to be misjudged.

 

In my experience, things like meeting "Customer Service Standards" are precisely the kind of thing that get transferred directly to managers objectives, particularly if they can latch onto something "measurable", (i.e. how many locks did we actually manage to install 3 stumps beside this year).

 

So I would not be at all surprised to find bonus payments being made because this kind of objective has been met, even though the original idea was barking.

 

If I am even part right, those responsible need sacking, rather than rewarding simply because they have made their own misjudged ideas part of the way their performance is assessed.

 

:end_rant:

 

Some time back I did a little research into Customer Service Standards (CSS). CSS was mooted some years ago as a replacement for the SIM standards which gave an indication of the status and level of maintenance of our waterways. BW started talking to BWAF about replacement standards and then all went quiet. Fast forward to November 2007 and BW introduced CSS without any consultation with waterways users.

 

I seem to recall that they stated in a press release that they would publish yearly and quarterly figures regarding achievement against targets (this is refered to in Simon Salems bonus targets as well) but have failed to do so.

 

A couple of months back BW set up an "independent" customer committee (not related to BWAF or user groups) so it can be safely said that CSS was instigated and has run for almost a year with no input from BW's "customers".

 

So why did they do it? I think the answer lies in the 2007/8 Annual Report which gives an insite into directors bonus payments. These can not be made unless certain basic safety and customer satisfaction criteria are met. The report notes a sharp drop in boaters satisfaction and suggests that it will be improved by the introduction of new "Customer Service Standards".

 

Those that have bothered to read the CSS will note that a lot of the standards are safety related. What better way of showing that you are meeting safey criteria than by identifying potential risks and implementing a scheme for addressing them and what better way of showing that your customers are satisfied than having measureable service standards - that way you don't even have to carry out surveys.

 

I don't think BW will ever admit that CSS was an ill judged knee jerk response to a fall in boater satisfaction. They were completely unprepared for the reception on "barmy bollards", "silly cill markers" and A4 laminated paper on sticks and plowed on regardless.

[Boatgypsy]

To all those who have been complaining about this being a witchhunt against Robin Evans et al, I don't even think the issue is one of incompetence or mismanagement, I think the issue is one of how can such high salaries be justified for someone managing an organisation of the size of BW, with the annual budget of BW and with the relatively small and uncomplicated responsibilities of BW.

 

The salaries and bonuses of Evans and the rest of the crew are totally out of sync with their importance, especially when viewed against the budget cuts and the pitiful level of salary for workers at the ground level.

 

I think Allan is quite right and justified to put these guys under the spotlight, because I suspect that they know their remuneration is not justifiable and they are likely to be embarrassed to have that fact exposed.

[Richard Fairhurst]

You seem to be under a misaprehension that performance-related bonuses are something that are only paid to directors of companies, and you further seem to be being disingenuous about what people are paid.

 

I'm not a director by any means, but I am eligible for a performance related bonus of 18% of basic salary.

Indeed, though that doesn't mean they're necessarily useful.

 

When I worked for BW a few years back (at Waterscape) I was promised a bonus for achieving certain targets within the year. To be honest I actually can't remember whether or not I got it or not: I do remember that one of the targets was "introduce print-on-demand content", which of course we did - the Waterscape Boaters' Guides. But the fact it was a target didn't make it any more likely to get done - we did it because we thought it would be useful to boaters, a good addition to the site, and because BW was keen to have the information available and we wanted to do it properly rather than as a half-cocked, quickly-forgotten Word document.