Redundancies

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It looks like up to 400 jobs will go at BW. They are putting the blame on Defra grant cuts which is rather unfair as they have always had to stated intention of being largely independent of government grant by 2012.

 

Narrowboatworld article

 

***Edited to sort out messed up link

Edited February 7, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[stuart]

Thats some serious salary for the top guys/girls.

 

Especially for a company that only employs 1,700 people (at the moment).

[Chris Pink]

Those salary figures are completely disgusting.

[mayalld]

Those salary figures are completely disgusting.

 

What proportion of people who say that would refuse to take such a salary if it were offered to them?

[grahoom]

What proportion of people who say that would refuse to take such a salary if it were offered to them?

 

I think we need a poll!!!!

[CV32]

I personally think that if we are going to waste money on a new name we should also waste a bit of money on advertising and recruiting new executives for a third sector organisation on a more reasonable salary scale.

 

I would gladly do one of those jobs for £250k - and like some i am also totally unqualified to do so

Edited February 7, 2011 by CV32

[greywolf]

I would have thought as there role with BW the quango were now redundant so where they and would at the very least have to reapply for there job in the new charity.

 

It makes a bit of a mockery of them asking for unpayed volunteers to work on the waterways when you see the wages being payed.

[mayalld]

I would have thought as there role with BW the quango were now redundant so where they and would at the very least have to reapply for there job in the new charity.

 

It makes a bit of a mockery of them asking for unpayed volunteers to work on the waterways when you see the wages being payed.

 

They could do that, but even people on big salaries are entitled to redundancy (and in most cases their contract will specify the terms they get).

[jenlyn]

What proportion of people who say that would refuse to take such a salary if it were offered to them?

 

this matters not and does not even warrant saying. In present climes and reality, these salaries are rediculous in the extreme. Bank side staff are far more important to the canal system (IMO). The greed, obesity or self indulgence of these execs is unreal and not in any way relevant to BW's size as a business

[sociable_hermit]

I would rather see less money being spent at the top and rather more spent on the people actually out and about working on the canals.

 

If the average wage in the UK is about £20k then it's not hard to see how some wage cuts at Board level would keep people employed.

 

And yes, I know there's the old "we need to pay for the required quality of managerial expertise" arguement but quite frankly they don't strike me as particularly high quality now, and I think there are equally competent people out there with a greater love of the waterways who would do the job for far less, with no reduction in quality and indeed more likely an improvement.

[mayalld]

this matters not and does not even warrant saying. In present climes and reality, these salaries are rediculous in the extreme. Bank side staff are far more important to the canal system (IMO). The greed, obesity or self indulgence of these execs is unreal and not in any way relevant to BW's size as a business

 

It does matter, actually.

 

Most people (not all, I admit) would like more, and the vast majority of us, if offered a doubling of our salary with no strings, would say "yes please".

 

That has to beg the question "is that amount obscene only because it is more than you get"

 

As a suplementary question, what is the upper limit of what is not obscene for any job?

[Guest]

this matters not and does not even warrant saying. In present climes and reality, these salaries are rediculous in the extreme. Bank side staff are far more important to the canal system (IMO). The greed, obesity or self indulgence of these execs is unreal and not in any way relevant to BW's size as a business

 

Disagree with the first bit but agree with the latter bit.

 

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who would happily grab this sort of money even if they know they can only do half a job - that bit I'm afraid is simple fact. _ However it is the perceived need to have to pay this level of salary that worries me - there must be hordes of folk out there now who could do a better job for half that amount...

[mayalld]

Disagree with the first bit but agree with the latter bit.

 

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who would happily grab this sort of money even if they know they can only do half a job - that bit I'm afraid is simple fact. _ However it is the perceived need to have to pay this level of salary that worries me - there must be hordes of folk out there now who could do a better job for half that amount...

 

The problem is that we are discussing the "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" argument.

 

Basically, the theory is that the number of people who have the necessary skills to run big organisations is tiny, and that these people know it, and know "their worth". The conclusion can be drawn (and it IS a fairly valid conclusion) that if you won't pay the right money, you won't get the right people.

 

As I said, the argument is fairly valid. There may well be somebody who can command £500k salaries where he wants, but reall wants to run the waterways, and would do it for £100k, but that is an exception.

 

Where it all falls apart is that HR people never did understand logic. They understand that paying peanuts gets them monkeys, but fail to understand that paying vast sums is no guarantee that they won't STILL get monkeys

[Albion]

They could do that, but even people on big salaries are entitled to redundancy (and in most cases their contract will specify the terms they get).

 

Just a question Dave, and with no agenda. How do the TUPE (?) regs fit in then with people in industry, that I've heard of, having to reapply for their own jobs when conditions of employment are changed or when their company is taken over? Or, was this regime only applied before these new regs came into being?

Roger

[sociable_hermit]

It does matter, actually.

 

Most people (not all, I admit) would like more, and the vast majority of us, if offered a doubling of our salary with no strings, would say "yes please".

 

That has to beg the question "is that amount obscene only because it is more than you get"

 

As a suplementary question, what is the upper limit of what is not obscene for any job?

The first question, at this theoretical level, is "Who is offering the money?". Who decides BW Board-level salaries, bonuses etc.?

 

If, as I suspect, they are largely self-imposed then the next questions are "Is that sustainable?", "Is it justifiable?" and "Will it damage our public reputation?". I think BW are out of touch with reality on all three.

 

Your point about it being obscene because it's (potentially) more than I'd get is irrelevant, because if they took a pay cut my pay wouldn't go up. However there is a "value for money" element here. If they took a pay cut and retained more staff on the ground, would the value for money I'd subsequently get out of my BW licence be better or worse than if alternative plans were followed?

 

Mark Thomas has suggested that the UK maximum wage should be 10x the average non-Exec wage. He quotes circa £25k as the average wage (I must admit I thought it was lower than that), making the proposed maximum at present values £250k. The cunning bit is that if Execs want to pay themselves any more they'd have to pay everybody else more first, to raise the average wage so that the mechanism would then permit their own pay rises.

 

Where it all falls apart is that HR people never did understand logic. They understand that paying peanuts gets them monkeys, but fail to understand that paying vast sums is no guarantee that they won't STILL get monkeys

I agree with that bit!

[muddywaters]

I would rather see less money being spent at the top and rather more spent on the people actually out and about working on the canals.

 

If the average wage in the UK is about £20k then it's not hard to see how some wage cuts at Board level would keep people employed.

 

And yes, I know there's the old "we need to pay for the required quality of managerial expertise" arguement but quite frankly they don't strike me as particularly high quality now, and I think there are equally competent people out there with a greater love of the waterways who would do the job for far less, with no reduction in quality and indeed more likely an improvement.

Spot on with that post said everything I was going to say.

If I am honest all of the bank side BW staff I have come into contact with have been friendly and helpful.

I even went to th extent of emailing BW last year when we got back from our Llangollen canal cruise to praise the BW man taking the mooring payments at Llangollen.

Fact is yes some senior management is needed but they would have nothing to manage without the work of those on the ground.

I'm sure there are a lot more people involved in the waterways who could do a much better job than those running them now.

And because they have an interest already in the waterways would have a much better idea of what methods work and what don't plus what the waterways need.

The trouble with this country is that there are to many people running things who gained their knowledge via uni and have not seen how the job works

[RLWP]

The answer to your question could be on the ACAS website. Having been TUPEd twice, all I can remember is that my terms of employment, and IIRC length of service, carried over.

 

Richard

Edited February 7, 2011 by RLWP

[Neil TNC]

It does matter, actually.

 

Most people (not all, I admit) would like more, and the vast majority of us, if offered a doubling of our salary with no strings, would say "yes please".

 

That has to beg the question "is that amount obscene only because it is more than you get"

 

As a suplementary question, what is the upper limit of what is not obscene for any job?

 

What my UBS banker mate gets paid, including his bonus that has just wiped out his debt and paid for a new Beemer?

[mayalld]

 

Your point about it being obscene because it's (potentially) more than I'd get is irrelevant, because if they took a pay cut my pay wouldn't go up.

 

 

No, it isn't irrelevant, because it isn't a question of what would happen to your pay if theirs fell.

 

The simple fact is that in discussions like these, the point is regularly made that "it is objectionable that [FATCAT] earns £x when [PROFESSION-Y] earns £x/10"

 

Hence, the suggestion isn't that the salary is obcene of itself, merely because it is so much more than another salary.

 

Mark Thomas has suggested that the UK maximum wage should be 10x the average non-Exec wage. He quotes circa £25k as the average wage (I must admit I thought it was lower than that), making the proposed maximum at present values £250k. The cunning bit is that if Execs want to pay themselves any more they'd have to pay everybody else more first, to raise the average wage so that the mechanism would then permit their own pay rises.

 

 

Ways would be found to get round that!

[Chris Pink]

What proportion of people who say that would refuse to take such a salary if it were offered to them?

 

God you talk such crap.

 

if I wanted that kind of salary I would have chosen a career path that led to it. I don't.

 

If you judge people by your own sordid lack of morality, ie it's ok to steal from the taxpayer as long as you were not the one actually lifting the money, then you live in a sad little world. no wonder you're so grumpy and lacking in humour and joie de vie.

 

And if you think that the directors are not culpable in their own salary levels (who sets them) then you're stupid too.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

For the purpose of comparison, Robin Evans equivalent at the National Trust was paid about £165,000 last year.

 

Based on various measures I have made (turnover, staff etc) NT is over twice the size of BW.

[plainsman]

It does matter, actually.

 

Most people (not all, I admit) would like more, and the vast majority of us, if offered a doubling of our salary with no strings, would say "yes please".

 

That has to beg the question "is that amount obscene only because it is more than you get"

 

As a suplementary question, what is the upper limit of what is not obscene for any job?

 

Need to keep some perspective on this. Footballers, so called TV celebs and the film types all demand and get eye watering high pay. There doesn't seem to be much resentment at these people being paid such high wages/fees. Despite this feeling of acceptance we all pay for these excessive wages through TV licence, fees to Sky, cinema tickets, football tickets and end product costs where the celebs et al advertise or are associated with individual products.

[mayalld]

God you talk such crap.

 

if I wanted that kind of salary I would have chosen a career path that led to it. I don't.

 

If you judge people by your own sordid lack of morality, ie it's ok to steal from the taxpayer as long as you were not the one actually lifting the money, then you live in a sad little world. no wonder you're so grumpy and lacking in humour and joie de vie.

 

And if you think that the directors are not culpable in their own salary levels (who sets them) then you're stupid too.

 

Well, thank you for foaming at the mouth without addressing the question.

 

You seem incapable of arguing an issue, easier to just attack your opponent isn't it?

[jenlyn]

Need to keep some perspective on this. Footballers, so called TV celebs and the film types all demand and get eye watering high pay. There doesn't seem to be much resentment at these people being paid such high wages/fees. Despite this feeling of acceptance we all pay for these excessive wages through TV licence, fees to Sky, cinema tickets, football tickets and end product costs where the celebs et al advertise or are associated with individual products.

cant see Chelski or sky making a bid for Robin Evans services

 

Well, thank you for foaming at the mouth without addressing the question.

 

You seem incapable of arguing an issue, easier to just attack your opponent isn't it?

 

somewhat deserved at times (IMO), in your case

[Chris Pink]

 

 

You seem incapable of arguing an issue,

 

well add failure to understand the written word to the growing list of your stupidities.

 

Try using your finger to follow the words.

 

You're pathetic. If you think that the head of BW deserves half a million a year then you are squarely part of the problem.

 

Live a life of greed, Dave, it's done you so much good so far.