TIME FOR CHANGE - BW CULTURE CHANGE - WANTED NOW

[Phoenix_V]

Indeed we do have such talent in many of the restoration societies.

 

I just don't see the same talent in the representative organisations.

IWA seem to be doing a fine job of running the Chelmer and Blackwater on rather less money than BW would - or does anyone know different?

Edited August 3, 2011 by Phoenix_V

[Laurence Hogg]

Now the whole public gets another view of the forthcoming charity directors salaries: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/aug/03/civil-servants-quango-chiefs-paid-150000#start-of-comments

[cotswoldsman]

Now the whole public gets another view of the forthcoming charity directors salaries: http://www.guardian....art-of-comments

 

Laurence just so I understand is your objection to BW based on the salaries of the people who run it, or the fact that BW staff are not available between 8am and 8pm.

[Laurence Hogg]

Laurence just so I understand is your objection to BW based on the salaries of the people who run it, or the fact that BW staff are not available between 8am and 8pm.

 

John,

I dont have any objections to BW as such.

At this time of year staff should be around into the evening, take for instance the locking up of Bratch locks at 4.30PM hardly a time when boating stops. We were told at 3.30PM we couldnt go through because there "wasnt enough time", that was quickly rectified when the lockies boss emerged from the cabin!

As for salaries, Sir Jack Haywood commented on "obscene salaries" in football and the government, with BW salaries for its directors at the level they are personally I would like to see them reduced inline with other similar responsible jobs.

BW needs sorting out, I have just taken a call from Leeds who want my email address and details as their database doesnt have them, given the number of emails I get from BW how many databases are there? Is this a clear demonstration of Watford not communicating with its satellites?

[cotswoldsman]

John,

I dont have any objections to BW as such.

At this time of year staff should be around into the evening, take for instance the locking up of Bratch locks at 4.30PM hardly a time when boating stops. We were told at 3.30PM we couldnt go through because there "wasnt enough time", that was quickly rectified when the lockies boss emerged from the cabin!

As for salaries, Sir Jack Haywood commented on "obscene salaries" in football and the government, with BW salaries for its directors at the level they are personally I would like to see them reduced inline with other similar responsible jobs.

BW needs sorting out, I have just taken a call from Leeds who want my email address and details as their database doesnt have them, given the number of emails I get from BW how many databases are there? Is this a clear demonstration of Watford not communicating with its satellites?

 

Ok fair enough, so what should the salary be for someone who runs a business with a turnover of over £300 million and tangible assets of about £500 million. Now I just want to point out that I actually do not have a problem with there salaries at present when compared with people at the top of similar sized business's. As a charity I guess they might be a bit high, but what do you do, sack them? (might be a bit difficult) my big beef with the top management is the fact that I think 3 or maybe 4 of them have pension pots of over £1 million.

[Laurence Hogg]

Ok fair enough, so what should the salary be for someone who runs a business with a turnover of over £300 million and tangible assets of about £500 million. Now I just want to point out that I actually do not have a problem with there salaries at present when compared with people at the top of similar sized business's. As a charity I guess they might be a bit high, but what do you do, sack them? (might be a bit difficult) my big beef with the top management is the fact that I think 3 or maybe 4 of them have pension pots of over £1 million.

 

The National trust is the nearest and sizeable charity so let that be the guidleines IMO. If the directors want to stay and are so "passionate" about the waterways as one says all the time he is, take a pay cut and keep the job.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Laurence Hogg

[cotswoldsman]

The National trust is the nearest and sizeable charity so let that be the guidleines IMO. If the directors want to stay and are so "passionate" about the waterways as one says all the time he is, take a pay cut and keep the job.

 

 

 

but they keep their jobs anyway so to get them to reduce to £170,000 would be difficult, hope they do not follow the National Trust and close between October and March!!!!

[sueb]

but they keep their jobs anyway so to get them to reduce to £170,000 would be difficult, hope they do not follow the National Trust and close between October and March!!!!

The stoppage season

Sue

[carlt]

....or the fact that BW staff are not available between 8am and 8pm.

They can't hear the phones because they're running their generators.

[sociable_hermit]

On your second point I think you are beginning to understand the dangers of what quite a lot of people are asking for that is 1 membership = 1 vote. As I said before with a scheme like that members interested in Towpaths will far out number members interested in the actual water in the canals.

It's important to get the distinctions right. If NWC is split into an overseeing Society owning the majority of shares in an operating PLC, there is absolutely no reason why someone paying the Society membership fee could not subsequently have a similar sum or a percentage discount deducted from the licence fee they buy from the PLC, by having a special member's rate. Likewise they could also be given a percentage discount on items bought from NWC shops, or for entry into museums and exhibitions, which might be enough (in combination with the use of volunteer staff) to keep some of those open through the summer months.

 

However I think simply regarding a PLC purchase as tantamount to Society membership causes some legal headaches.

 

As for one member = one vote, yes that is a risk isn't it? Which is precisely why I proposed the discount structure outlined above: because it pretty much guarantees membership by boaters but doesn't offer half as much of an incentive for everyone else. Nonetheless the boating community would have to stay on their toes, maybe encouraging family members to join, not to mention hire boaters and other groups sympathetic to the boating cause (National Trust members or railway preservationists, for example).

 

However even if one group does become numerically dominant this would not guarantee board level control. As I've said before specialist groups tend to put forward partisan candidates, so provided every interest group is motivated enough to put someone forward and then vote for them, it'll still work, as the contrasting interests on the Board will balance each other out. Especially as most members probably won't be that partisan and will also recognise the need for long term survival and the need for non-user-group-specific skills, such as engineering, financial, HR and business management skills. For every specialist candidate there's normally an all rounder. And the safest way to guarantee representation is to encourage membership and electoral participation, which can only be a win/win for NWC.

 

Needless to say, anyone on the floor at the AGM could propose a method of setting Board salaries, and provided it is seconded and they win the subsequent vote, it would become a stated Society policy to be obeyed by the PLC. Personally I think the Society Trustees could probably be volunteers as their broad policy-making role would not require full time involvement.

[sebrof]

my big beef with the top management is the fact that I think 3 or maybe 4 of them have pension pots of over £1 million.

 

If you are going to pay somebody £200k a year, you are going to have to fund a pension of two thirds of that, ie: £133k a year.

 

The necessary "pension pot" is therefore going to have to be significantly more than £1 million (assuming the necessary years of service).

 

Now, if you don't think people should have pensions related to their salaries, fine. But it's common to virtually all government employees, so why single out the directors at BW? Why should they be different from, say, a fireman, or a government minister?

 

You are a bit woolly at times. A lack of intellectual rigour seems to pervade your thinking.

[cotswoldsman]

The stoppage season

Sue

 

Sorry did not realise that they were going to close all the locks, water points, elsans etc in the winter, do you know something I don't have NABO been notified of this change?

[cotswoldsman]

If you are going to pay somebody £200k a year, you are going to have to fund a pension of two thirds of that, ie: £133k a year.

 

The necessary "pension pot" is therefore going to have to be significantly more than £1 million (assuming the necessary years of service).

 

Now, if you don't think people should have pensions related to their salaries, fine. But it's common to virtually all government employees, so why single out the directors at BW? Why should they be different from, say, a fireman, or a government minister?

 

You are a bit woolly at times. A lack of intellectual rigour seems to pervade your thinking.

 

Ok in the case of a Fireman the Government contributes 7.5% of salary last year (2010 - 2011) BW contributed £42,645 to Robin Evans Pension that is about 18% of salary, he has a Pension pot of £1,451,240.00

I might well have a lack of intellectual rigour but that does not mean I can not have an opinion on Pension Contributions for someone who has been an employee of BW for 12 years.

 

I do not say I am a pensions expert.

Edited August 4, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[mayalld]

Ok in the case of a Fireman the Government contributes 7.5% of salary last year (2010 - 2011) BW contributed £42,645 to Robin Evans Pension that is about 18% of salary, he has a Pension pot of £1,451,240.00

I might well have a lack of intellectual rigour but that does not mean I can not have an opinion on Pension Contributions for someone who has been an employee of BW for 12 years.

 

7.5% would be a very low employers contribution rate.

 

NHS Pension Scheme involves a 14% Employer contribution.

 

Royal Mail Pension Scheme is currently a 20% Employer contribution.

 

Sorry, but your 7.5% is plain wrong. For Firemen who joined before 2006, the rate is 24.4% (for later entrants on a less generous scheme it is 11.8%)

[cotswoldsman]

7.5% would be a very low employers contribution rate.

 

NHS Pension Scheme involves a 14% Employer contribution.

 

Royal Mail Pension Scheme is currently a 20% Employer contribution.

 

Sorry, but your 7.5% is plain wrong. For Firemen who joined before 2006, the rate is 24.4% (for later entrants on a less generous scheme it is 11.8%)

 

Ah well I only did a quick google it was early in the morning!!

[mayalld]

The National trust is the nearest and sizeable charity so let that be the guidleines IMO. If the directors want to stay and are so "passionate" about the waterways as one says all the time he is, take a pay cut and keep the job.

 

Comparisons can be helpful, or they can be unhelpful.

 

The first question that we should ask is "are we asking people to do similar jobs", to which the answer must be "no" The NT is about preserving old things for people to come and look at. NWC will be about keeping old things in working order for people to actually USE as well as for people to look at. NT manages an estate that it can selectively close for extended periods for maintenance, without adversly affecting the whole. NWC will not have that luxury. We are looking for different skills, and we must accept that different skills have different values in the marketplace.

 

NT ran a canal once, and didn't make a good job of it, despite running the rest of their estate well, which suggests that you might need to pay more for people who can balance heritage and operation.

 

It is also easy to throw rhetoric like "if they are passionate, they will take a pay cut" into the mix, but it isn't realistic. People generally cut their coat acording to their cloth, and they aren't going to take a job on significantly less money, which will involve lifestyle changes, if they can get a job that pays what they get now. Yes there are some people who would do that, but we want the ability to recruit from the whole talent pool, rather than be restricted to a small subset that is happy to work for less than the position warrants.

[Tiny]

Reading the accounts for the RSPB - with over a million members - the fees for being a member are not great. So even if BW got a million members in its charity the amount of money it would raise would still not be enough to maintain the canals and pay large saleries for numerous managers. The RSPB - which offers an awful lot for its fee also get a good sum from legacies but I can't imagine BW getting much unless the punters are really gullable. All in all the figures for where the money to keep the cut open get ever more nebulous.

[deletedaccount]

If you are going to pay somebody £200k a year, you are going to have to fund a pension of two thirds of that, ie: £133k a year.

 

The necessary "pension pot" is therefore going to have to be significantly more than £1 million (assuming the necessary years of service).

 

Now, if you don't think people should have pensions related to their salaries, fine. But it's common to virtually all government employees, so why single out the directors at BW? Why should they be different from, say, a fireman, or a government minister?

 

You are a bit woolly at times. A lack of intellectual rigour seems to pervade your thinking.

 

Directors will be on a different scheme. a 30ths or 45ths based one as opposed to a normal drongo 80ths. Meaning not only do they get a bigger pension due to their salary size, they have to work half as long to earn it.

[Robin2]

All in all the figures for where the money to keep the cut open get ever more nebulous.

 

Surprise - Surprise!

 

The real purposes of the scheme are/were twofold -

 

1 - the most senior managers wanted an intellectually stimulating task with attendant peer admiration (i.e. from City business types) (which fixing locks does not do);

 

and

 

2 - it suited the Treasury to agree because it will simplify the politics of future spending cuts on canals that have become the responsibility of an arms-length charity rather than Government

[LEO]

So BW do not have enough cash to maintain the existing system and this situation will not change which ever way they go in the future.

 

Why then do we increase the burden of maintenance with restored waterways? and schemes which may be completed in the future.

 

A radical change of charging for the use of the system will have to be considered and introduced PDQ.

 

Leo.

[mayalld]

So BW do not have enough cash to maintain the existing system and this situation will not change which ever way they go in the future.

 

Why then do we increase the burden of maintenance with restored waterways? and schemes which may be completed in the future.

 

We don't.

 

For all its manifold faults, BW isn't actually the turkey that voted for Christmas.

 

Broadly speaking, BW won't take on a restored canal unless it comes with a dowry.

 

In the case of the HNC (which is the one I know most about), this consisted of a fund which various local authorities comitted to making annual payments to over 25 years. The payments actually exceed the maintenance liability, and are set at a level which actuarialy ought to provide funds that will maintain the canal for 125 years

[LEO]

We don't.

 

For all its manifold faults, BW isn't actually the turkey that voted for Christmas.

 

Broadly speaking, BW won't take on a restored canal unless it comes with a dowry.

 

In the case of the HNC (which is the one I know most about), this consisted of a fund which various local authorities comitted to making annual payments to over 25 years. The payments actually exceed the maintenance liability, and are set at a level which actuarialy ought to provide funds that will maintain the canal for 125 years

 

Thanks for the info, especially concerning the HNC, but the bit that worries me is the possible future liabilty for the tunnel (and tunnels that may be taken over in schemes).

 

The Basingstoke Canal has water supply shortages and also a reluctance by local Authorities to provide cash for the up keep of the canal, will this situation become more widespread, especially with the long term economic downturn we are facing.

 

Leo.

[Robin2]

 

A radical change of charging for the use of the system will have to be considered and introduced PDQ.

 

 

Isn't that what I and everybody else pays their licence fee for.

 

Or do you envisage a charge per canal and if the fees collected are insufficient the canal will be allowed to close?

 

 

I can't get my head around the notion that collecting money by a different means is more effective than simply raising the licence fee for which all the administration arrangements already exist.

 

Or are you hoping that a different charging system would be less expensive for you and more expensive for others?

[Laurence Hogg]

Isn't that what I and everybody else pays their licence fee for.

 

Or do you envisage a charge per canal and if the fees collected are insufficient the canal will be allowed to close?

 

 

I can't get my head around the notion that collecting money by a different means is more effective than simply raising the licence fee for which all the administration arrangements already exist.

 

Or are you hoping that a different charging system would be less expensive for you and more expensive for others?

 

This may well be the point where it might be a sensible move to go back to a "basic" user licence with an allowed "free mileage" constituent and then charge tolls. With modern infrastructure readily available it is in effect an "off the shelf" option. The more you boat the more you pay. Boats barcoded picked up by sensors would also allow for charging where people overstay on moorings. It could also help put a lid on the "(not real) continous cruisers" who are a menace to the true continous cruisers.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Laurence Hogg

[Robin2]

This may well be the point where it might be a sensible move to go back to a "basic" user licence with an allowed "free mileage" constituent and then charge tolls. With modern infrastructure readily available it is in effect an "off the shelf" option. The more you boat the more you pay. Boats barcoded picked up by sensors would also allow for charging where people overstay on moorings. It could also help put a lid on the "(not real) continous cruisers" who are a menace to the true continous cruisers.

 

Do you intend this system to collect more or less money than the present system?

 

If you intend it to collect extra money then, because the relatively little used boats will save money by paying less those who use their boats (i.e. CCers) will have to pay what the little used boats save PLUS the extra PLUS what they already pay.

 

If that's what you mean, come out and say so and don't try to hide the issue behind "modern infrastructure".

Edited August 4, 2011 by Robin2