BW

[Junemc153]

Just in case anybody is interested 5 of the top brass at BW are shown in the list of employees of QUANGOs earning more than 150,000 (go the Cabinet Office and you will be able to access the spreadsheet with details).

 

Top five earn at least £683,000 between them!

 

Let's hope that any cuts in funding start at the top

[Daio]

I always think it's rather odd to think of people "earning" such sums. They certainly might be remunerated, or get paid, or receive them but I cannot understand how anyone who is an employee is really worth 10, 20 or even more times the earnings of others in the organisation.

 

There will always be the truly exceptional person who makes a profound difference and who may therefore be worth a great deal to an organisation but it seems to me that huge salaries are seen as the norm for anyone above middle-management level in any outfit, so there are many thousands of them, mostly pretty ordinary (and I've met a lot of them). If it's your own company or you're self employed them good luck to you.

 

The public service ethos has gone. No pride, just target-chasing.

[hughc]

The present BW management have certainly made a profound difference which is visible over the whole system. Regards, HughC.

[cotswoldsman]

Just in case anybody is interested 5 of the top brass at BW are shown in the list of employees of QUANGOs earning more than 150,000 (go the Cabinet Office and you will be able to access the spreadsheet with details).

 

Top five earn at least £683,000 between them!

 

Let's hope that any cuts in funding start at the top

 

That does not work out as £683,000 between 5 is only £136,600

[Ewart Hodgson]

I would far rather my licence money paid decently for good leadership than small change for third-rate leadership. The difference, spread between us, is only pence each.

 

How many private sector organizations that control a system the size of BW's are led as cheaply? BW need to attract good people, without asking them to undergo pay cuts to do so.

[Graham Davis]

Be grateful it doesn't have a CEO that earns more than the PM!!

 

Luckily ours at NR has just resigned!!

[Daio]

I would far rather my licence money paid decently for good leadership than small change for third-rate leadership. The difference, spread between us, is only pence each.

 

How many private sector organizations that control a system the size of BW's are led as cheaply? BW need to attract good people, without asking them to undergo pay cuts to do so.

 

This is the point. The siren call of "having to pay to get the best", which leads to massive leapfrogging at the top, usually for those who are far from being the best. There is much macho posturing at Board level too - "this is such a big important company we need to, and can, pay vastly inflated salaries and perks to anyone with a pulse". Strange how paying for the best doesn't seem to apply to the wageslaves lower down the pecking order.

 

I remember a piece a few years ago about pay differentials in different countries. Comparing shop floor/chief exec pay - Germany x20, Sweden x4, UK x90 - and it's got a lot worse since. I don't recall Sweden and Germany weeping over the dreadful state of their company management.

 

This is a monumental scam, perpetrated and perpetuated by rich bastards who have everything to gain. Viva la Revolucion!

[Ewart Hodgson]

"Strange how paying for the best doesn't seem to apply to the wageslaves lower down the pecking order."

 

It applies throughout. If there are lots of people who are good enough for any job, compared to the number of jobs avaiable, you don't have to pay much. If there are very few people who are good enough, compared to the number of employers chasing them, you need to pay a lot to get one of them. It's the way the market works. You see the same thing with rock singers, footballers etc; it is not just managers. The reason that high pay tends to be seen at leadership level more than at artisan level is that one dodgy carpenter will probably not affect the whole company, but one dodgy leader can destroy it (and a really good one can make it: think of Eddison, Bell, Gates etc). Where the critically-rare talent is in a job other than management, then that person may well be paid more than their manager (think rock star and his manager).

Edited July 2, 2010 by Ewart Hodgson

[Daio]

"Strange how paying for the best doesn't seem to apply to the wageslaves lower down the pecking order."

 

It applies throughout. If there are lots of people who are good enough for any job, compared to the number of jobs avaiable, you don't have to pay much. If there are very few people who are good enough, compared to the number of employers chasing them, you need to pay a lot to get one of them. It's the way the market works. You see the same thing with rock singers, footballers etc; it is not just managers. The reason that high pay tends to be seen at leadership level more than at artisan level is that one dodgy carpenter will probably not affect the whole company, but one dodgy leader can destroy it (and a really good one can make it: think of Eddison, Bell, Gates etc). Where the critically-rare talent is in a job other than management, then that person may well be paid more than their manager (think rock star and his manager).

 

Don't try winning the argument through application of logic. I hate it when people do that.

 

The market is broken, we've all seen that. True market principles are all very well, but overlook two very human traits - greed and dishonesty. Also, a perfect market is, by its very nature, grossly "unfair". I put it in that way to indicate that societies values will determine what is fair - there is no absolute measure. This probably explains the disparities in earnings ratios I mentioned earlier. However, a perfect market is unlikely to subsist because it exacerbates material inequalities to an extent that most would find abhorent.

 

The point I'm trying to make, very badly, is that market principles are skewed by human frailty. Their application is more to do with power than with reward for true worth. In another thread today I indicated that I had no problem with great treasures for the self-employed. If someone is daft enough to give their money to someone a thousand times richer than they are, good luck to the recipient. I don't really have a choice when it comes to the purchase of tyres or tomato sauce or my BW licence, other than having no tyres/tomato sauce (don't say make it yourself!)/canal craft, but I can choose not to give money to Madonna (that's really easy). And don't get me started on footballers. A market dominated by a small number of obsessive rich people with more money than sense. At least I can choose not to give them any of my money, directly at any rate.

 

There is an awful symmetry here. Thieves at the bottom, thieves at the top.

[Pluto]

"Strange how paying for the best doesn't seem to apply to the wageslaves lower down the pecking order."

 

The reason that high pay tends to be seen at leadership level more than at artisan level is that one dodgy carpenter will probably not affect the whole company,

Try telling that to BP at the moment, where poor 'artisan' work on a rig has resulted in their current problems. The 'artisan' driving a lorry, bus or train can also kill more people in an instant than a manager driving a desk, and surely there is no greater effect on society than killing someone? And then society as a whole relies on clean water and a good sewage system, again something much more important than the work of any desk-bound manager. What much management does not now realise, now they have become so divorced from the practical side of their business, is how little they impact on what is done in their name by those at the sharp end.

[dor]

If the BW management are so good that we need to pay exorbitant salaries fr them, how come BW needs completely reorganising every couple of years? How come they have lost so much money through their failed property management? How come they are widely criticised by people who know what is going on, from David cameron down.

 

The point is they just are not that good, but somehow have convinced governments that they are, largely by distorting many facts. There are plenty of MDs of SMEs that are earning a fraction of this bunch who could do a far better job.

[Guest]

If the BW management are so good that we need to pay exorbitant salaries fr them, how come BW needs completely reorganising every couple of years? How come they have lost so much money through their failed property management? How come they are widely criticised by people who know what is going on, from David cameron down.

 

The point is they just are not that good, but somehow have convinced governments that they are, largely by distorting many facts. There are plenty of MDs of SMEs that are earning a fraction of this bunch who could do a far better job.

 

They are nowt but a quango.

[kienik]

thought id make a comment on this as absolutley agree that top nobs get paid far too much,

 

The company i work for has over 2 thousand pubs/restaurants and we employ over 40 thousand people, our CEO (well he has now gone due to two failed hedge funds) (do your research and you will know exactly who i work for), he was paid almost three quaters of a million pounds per year and has a golden handshake of over six hundred K per year as a pension,

 

Not complaining, cos if it were me i would grab the money but i do think it is wrong that CEOs or equivalent can demand such salaries ( and cheauffers, london homes, company cars etc etc) and then they do a horrific job of wasting moiney and company profits i.e. the big banks, thats where i fee. really hard done by, the said CEO of the company i work for left us owing over 94 million pounds through stupid hedge funds bets, he is now probably now a ceo in another company (god help them) and after all this it was announced that no corporate bonus would be psid to us, and then we learn that the top knobs all got their squillions bonus at the end of the financial year!!!!!!

 

i do not and will not confess to being a corporate dude, but its in my job title so i guess i have to sort of act like one when in work but on here its different.

 

The point of my post is to point out that i hate the big fat cats that "pretend" to know what they are doing and in turn completely ruin lives/businesses/people etc etc

 

Anyway rant over for tonight

 

Nik

[Tiny]

If the theory is that this mob will not do the job for less money so we must give it to them then the obvious way is to offer a lot less and they might bugger off. Of course they would no doubt get large pensions/golden handshakes if they did go. Still if they did we might get someone to do a proper job.

That is, of course assuming that those who appoint the bosses want what is best for the waterways - maybe they don't and so don't care.

To back up the don't care just look how each waterways minister acts like a puppet, spouting the words BW feed him which is mostly meaningless waffle. (You can actually get a managementspeak waffle generator I understand and they don't cost much... certainly a lot less than the salery of one BW chief.)

Edited July 4, 2010 by Tiny

[Natalie Graham]

(You can actually get a managementspeak waffle generator I understand and they don't cost much... certainly a lot less than the salery of one BW chief.)

 

Reading BW's annual report in another recent thread I'm pretty sure that BW already have one of those.

[Derek R.]

A lot of seemingly valid observation and comment. But then as soon as one says "valid" - in whose eyes? Any market place will set a 'value' on a commodity entirely dependent upon the availability, need and greed of market participants. It is when greed (which is employed to look to the future ensuring a maintained status and continued existence, along with speculation) overtakes need (which is centred on the present), do we get skewed 'values' in which emotion plays no small part.

 

Any manager worth his 'salt' will have the respect of the workforce, as he/she will allow them conditions and material supplies for them to fulfil their tasks and provide them with a feeling of 'worth'. Once any manager sees stations above his/her own simply because others have placed a 'value' on their abilities, does greed take over and set a spiral of dishonesty that becomes essential to maintain what becomes a false sense of status - car/house/land/salary. That status then becomes despised by all below who see it for what they perceive it to be, and jealousy, resentment and hate quickly follow. 'Values' are then spoken of, when in truth those in 'high' places have lost any value to the company or workforce they purport to direct or manage, as they have gone beyond the Ivory tower into cloud cuckoo land, whether it be footballers, oil company executives, or courier company directors who have never driven or ridden at all. They may have skills in delegation, but that is a two edged sword with many workforces.

 

As money has taken over barter, 'big' money brings greed and dishonesty. If it hadn't, we would still be buying things at the prices when 'money' first appeared.

 

The 'value' of such a comment will be different to every individual who reads it. And maybe valueless.

 

Derek

[Daio]

A lot of seemingly valid observation and comment. But then as soon as one says "valid" - in whose eyes? Any market place will set a 'value' on a commodity entirely dependent upon the availability, need and greed of market participants. It is when greed (which is employed to look to the future ensuring a maintained status and continued existence, along with speculation) overtakes need (which is centred on the present), do we get skewed 'values' in which emotion plays no small part.

 

Any manager worth his 'salt' will have the respect of the workforce, as he/she will allow them conditions and material supplies for them to fulfil their tasks and provide them with a feeling of 'worth'. Once any manager sees stations above his/her own simply because others have placed a 'value' on their abilities, does greed take over and set a spiral of dishonesty that becomes essential to maintain what becomes a false sense of status - car/house/land/salary. That status then becomes despised by all below who see it for what they perceive it to be, and jealousy, resentment and hate quickly follow. 'Values' are then spoken of, when in truth those in 'high' places have lost any value to the company or workforce they purport to direct or manage, as they have gone beyond the Ivory tower into cloud cuckoo land, whether it be footballers, oil company executives, or courier company directors who have never driven or ridden at all. They may have skills in delegation, but that is a two edged sword with many workforces.

 

As money has taken over barter, 'big' money brings greed and dishonesty. If it hadn't, we would still be buying things at the prices when 'money' first appeared.

 

The 'value' of such a comment will be different to every individual who reads it. And maybe valueless.

 

Derek

 

Hear him, hear him. All down to mutual respect, innit.

[alan_fincher]

You can actually get a managementspeak waffle generator I understand and they don't cost much... certainly a lot less than the salery of one BW chief.

 

Reading BW's annual report in another recent thread I'm pretty sure that BW already have one of those.

 

Having seen that almost unbelievable interview published in Waterway's World a few months back with BW's Vince Moran, there is no doubt that BW already do have a very good one. Unfortunately though in their case the cost of each one does equate to the salary of one of BW's most senior men!

[Morat]

You can summarise this thread in two words: Shit Floats

[cariad]

You can summarise this thread in two words: Shit Floats

 

 

worked in a large steelworks some years ago. the bigger the bullsh--tter the better the wages and perks. no doubt this is still the norm in most walks of life.

[jenlyn]

BW are full of sh*t, much like some of the system they pretend to manage