A better management than CRT?

[Jerra]

On the UK Gov education website http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/about-teaching/salary

 

It says

 

At a minimum of £22,023 (or £27,543 in inner London), the starting salary in teaching is high compared to other graduate starting salaries. Leading practitioners can earn up to £65,324 in London and £58,096 outside London, while head teachers can reach a salary of between £42,232 and £114,437.

 

So not the same. I imagine in private schools of course it will be more.

 

Again though not relevant, the salary needs to be compared to a comparable job and organisation . I agree though it is not an outrageous level for such a role

.You have forgotten about the government having introduced Academies which can basically do what they like with regard to salaries both for staff and Heads.

 

I personally know a head master (not of an academy) who has a salary getting on towards that having been given a £30,000 pay increase by the governors in a single year.

 

Comparisons with other jobs are perfectly valid because at CEO level people move from industry to industry without knowledge of the industry. If CRT want to have and keep a CEO they have to pay the going rate and if it isn't much better than being a Head Master there is under the current government nothing to stop them becoming a Head. So comparisons with other professions are IMO sensible. Why run CRT when you can earn as much running something much smaller.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Indeed, and are you also saying that the National Trust is run by monkeys? (not you Allan, Tunneltug)

 

 

But £175,000 is hardly peanuts though is it?

 

 

I don't think they are but do you think a salary of £175,000 is peanuts then?

 

However, what is more important than comparisons of current and previous holder of the same post is the comparison of similar roles in comparable Trust/charity organisations in the UK.

Having looked at the 2013 accounts for the National Trust it appears that one person (presumably the CEO or equivalent) is paid between £170,000 and £179,000 so it would appear that Parry's salary is comparable to other charities.

 

Salaries always seem to be the weapon to beat an organisation with but the truth is that if you want reasonably competent staff you will have to pay for them. A classic case in point (in which I don't expect anyone to actually agree) is our current dire crop of MP's. Since MP's are paid less than a Police Superintendent (£67,000 as opposed to £72,500) the only people who become MP's are either those who want the power and are wealthy enough without needing the salary or those who lack the ability to get a job paying such wages elsewhere. This is why the standard of MP's is generally so low, and yet we all carp on about how bad they are yet what do you really expect? If we had the likes of George Soros as Chancellor or the Exchequer rather than some buffoon who hasn't really got a clue what he is doing the country would not be in such a state, but would anyone expect Soros to work for less than a Police Officer?

[Peter X]

In my work (as an IT freelancer) I've observed a lot of middle managers and a few more senior ones at work, in various organisations from government through quangos to fully private and the crazy world of merchant banking, and a variable lot they all are. If I were to try to generalise at all, I'd say all these types of organisation tend to be top heavy with too many managers, and poor at picking the top people. Often the real work gets done by junior managers making practical arrangements between themselves then convincing their bosses that they thought of it.

 

As to MPs' pay, cabinet ministers and especially the Chancellor will be paid considerably more than an ordinary MP, though still far less than George Soros. It should also be remembered that any ex-MP who is famous enough stands to earn a lot of money from after-dinner speaking and/or consultancy work after leaving politics, or from the Euro gravy train where salaries and expenses are higher and auditing standards lower.

 

I think I'm quite comfortable with a backbench MP being paid about the same as a Police Superintendent, seems fair to me.

[churchward]

.You have forgotten about the government having introduced Academies which can basically do what they like with regard to salaries both for staff and Heads.

 

I personally know a head master (not of an academy) who has a salary getting on towards that having been given a £30,000 pay increase by the governors in a single year.

 

Comparisons with other jobs are perfectly valid because at CEO level people move from industry to industry without knowledge of the industry. If CRT want to have and keep a CEO they have to pay the going rate and if it isn't much better than being a Head Master there is under the current government nothing to stop them becoming a Head. So comparisons with other professions are IMO sensible. Why run CRT when you can earn as much running something much smaller.

I can't forget something I didn't know.

 

I disagree about comparisons with other industries it is not relevant. People can and do cross over but they will do so understanding the consequences. Industry norms are a better indicator.

 

however a rather moot point if current salaries in CRT are roughly comparable to other like organisations.

[Pen n Ink]

So - what have I learned in the last 24 hours?

 

1. Apparently I simply Huff and Puff my own opinion by asking a question. Not quite sure what my opinion is since I haven't expressed one (other than that CRT have a thankless task), but clearly others know me better than I know myself. Hey Ho.

 

2. Anyone who has been involved with the waterways for a long time is entitled to Huff and Puff their opinion at will. Fair enough. As long as some of us are entitled to disagree.

 

3. The only "improvement" which anyone has been able to come up with and which has any element of costing attached to it is "Reduce the bosses salaries and bonuses, and reduce the number of managers". Please forgive me for saying this, but even if implemented that wouldn't actually take forward the cause of the waterways at all - certainly not without a number of other proposals to indicate how the system could be run in the absence of the managers.

 

Don't get me wrong - I am no fan of heavy management structures or high salaries for desk-jockeys but history provides us with many examples of societies which have removed the heads (sometimes literally) of those in power only to later realise that the vacuum created tends to fill itself with even less suitable material.

 

The current system, whereby there are a minority of people (some of whom have posted here) who are prepared to put themselves out and attempt constructive dialogue with CRT management in order to persuade them of a particular point of view, seems to be the best available. Vociferous squealing from others, without the concrete suggestions for change, is particularly counter-productive, and has resulted in CRT being more wary of open discussion than it might otherwise have been. Quelle Surprise!

 

This having been said, there have been a number of suggestions put forward on here that could have the potential for development, however I'm not clear how that is likely to happen in the current hostile climate. Why does it have to be Us and Them? Please, for the sake of the future of our waterways can't we try to be constructive and work together rather than simply criticise?

[Tunneltug]

I have learned that whatever you post on this forum will be pulled apart and requoted out of context until the content is completely misleading but I guess that is my fault for failing to communicate well enough.

 

I think the CRT would work a lot better if we (and I speak for myself as a boater but decline to state which sect I belong to) at least try to make it work, this is just my opinion which I believe it or not I am entitled to even if you disagree with it.

 

I think Richard Parry is worth every penny of his salary and if it were higher I wouldn't change my opinion. I don't tend to spent a lot of time sulking about what other people earn, I know the MD of the company I work for is on five times my salery and good for him, he's a good boss, he got us through Gotdon Browns 2008 disaster and given me 15 years of enjoyable, gainful employment so I stand by my comment that where management as much as skilled or professional staff "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys" and after a lifetime working in the private sector where the balance book matters, I know a good CEO is worth his/her weight in gold.

 

I will continue to support the CRT wherever I can and if things are going wrong for me I will deal with that in a constructive manor

Edited December 30, 2014 by Tunneltug

[alan_fincher]

The current system, whereby there are a minority of people (some of whom have posted here) who are prepared to put themselves out and attempt constructive dialogue with CRT management in order to persuade them of a particular point of view, seems to be the best available. Vociferous squealing from others, without the concrete suggestions for change, is particularly counter-productive, and has resulted in CRT being more wary of open discussion than it might otherwise have been. Quelle Surprise!

 

This having been said, there have been a number of suggestions put forward on here that could have the potential for development, however I'm not clear how that is likely to happen in the current hostile climate. Why does it have to be Us and Them? Please, for the sake of the future of our waterways can't we try to be constructive and work together rather than simply criticise?

 

This isn't meant to be a criticism, but can you detail for us the ways you have actually got involved in direct engagement with CRT in a bid to improve things.

 

Although I can be as guilty as the next man of engaging in days worth of Internet discussion on such topics, the actual reality is that it probably doesn't change a lot, unless it causes new people to put themselves forward to be actively involved.

[Pen n Ink]

<snip>

This isn't meant to be a criticism, but can you detail for us the ways you have actually got involved in direct engagement with CRT in a bid to improve things.

 

 

Alan

 

I freely admit that up to this point I haven't had any active involvement in this area; hence my original post that I don't normally put my head above the parapet in these discussions.

 

Having been of the "holiday boater" sect for many years, I am now in the process of becoming something else; I am committing my family's entire future to the waterways, and as such I certainly wouldn't rule out active involvement in the future. Until such time as I have sufficient experience to be able to contribute usefully, I will therefore confine my activities. This wasn't my point in the original question though - I was seeking opinions from those who DO have sufficient experience to suggest alternatives to CRT management styles seeing as they are evidently so bad for the waterways.

 

This lack of experience does not, however, preclude me from an ability to look at a situation as reported and form my own diagnosis. At the moment, that diagnosis is as stated above - It ain't completely broke so let's try to fix it. My current contribution is to abide by the rules which currently exist for good or ill.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

In my work (as an IT freelancer) I've observed a lot of middle managers and a few more senior ones at work, in various organisations from government through quangos to fully private and the crazy world of merchant banking, and a variable lot they all are. If I were to try to generalise at all, I'd say all these types of organisation tend to be top heavy with too many managers, and poor at picking the top people. Often the real work gets done by junior managers making practical arrangements between themselves then convincing their bosses that they thought of it.

 

As to MPs' pay, cabinet ministers and especially the Chancellor will be paid considerably more than an ordinary MP, though still far less than George Soros. It should also be remembered that any ex-MP who is famous enough stands to earn a lot of money from after-dinner speaking and/or consultancy work after leaving politics, or from the Euro gravy train where salaries and expenses are higher and auditing standards lower.

 

I think I'm quite comfortable with a backbench MP being paid about the same as a Police Superintendent, seems fair to me.

Which would suggest that you are equally comfortable with the generally low standard of MP's then? For myself, out of 650 MP's there is only 1 that I really have any time or respect for, the rest are pretty much what you'd expect to get for the money.