• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "£350k is enough for anyone - says Labour!"

Collapse

  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    Maybe that may have been true 30 years ago but not anymore.

    What we have are career politicians - e.g. those people whose lively hood and salary are tied to being a politician - and that is actually quite a large problem as clearly for these people the politics is simple a vehicle for getting paid and feeding their family etc

    This can clearly be demonstrated by those politicians who wake up 1 morning and simple change their colours, do you think that is

    a) Because they have had a complete change of heart and now have new political opinions and view points

    or

    b) because the new party offered better benefits.

    c) They’ve stayed where they were and their party has lurched further right/left (delete as applicable).

    What “better benefits” do you think individual parties offer? They’re not football clubs you know, they’re subject to Parliamentary rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    Maybe that may have been true 30 years ago but not anymore.

    What we have are career politicians - e.g. those people whose lively hood and salary are tied to being a politician - and that is actually quite a large problem as clearly for these people the politics is simple a vehicle for getting paid and feeding their family etc

    This can clearly be demonstrated by those politicians who wake up 1 morning and simple change their colours, do you think that is

    a) Because they have had a complete change of heart and now have new political opinions and view points

    or

    b) because the new party offered better benefits.
    What about those who change party colours because they are kicked out of their own party for daring to disagree with its leader?

    Leave a comment:


  • original PM
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    Most MPs would stand even if they had to pay for the honour. The only reason they get a salary is so people who aren't independently wealthy can be MPs. Thin end of the wedge, that was.
    Maybe that may have been true 30 years ago but not anymore.

    What we have are career politicians - e.g. those people whose lively hood and salary are tied to being a politician - and that is actually quite a large problem as clearly for these people the politics is simple a vehicle for getting paid and feeding their family etc

    This can clearly be demonstrated by those politicians who wake up 1 morning and simple change their colours, do you think that is

    a) Because they have had a complete change of heart and now have new political opinions and view points

    or

    b) because the new party offered better benefits.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    having worked for CEOs that can encourage people to walk through fire...
    You're just easily manipulated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zigenare
    replied
    Originally posted by DaveB View Post
    Except it's not quite like that is it.

    It's public sector Chief Execs only, and it's tied to the living wage, so as employees earn more, so do they.



    Still, it's a good pitch for a job as a Headline writer for the Wail.
    Except it's not quite like that is it?

    The Chief exec is tied to the living wage, the rest of the employees aren't.

    DaveB, read before you spout your tulipe!

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    having worked for CEOs that can encourage people to walk through fire and CEOs that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire you are wrong. One man or woman can and does make a difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Salaries should be set by owners as they see fit - in this case Govt on behalf of public, those who don’t like 350k limit should apply for jobs in private or start their own company.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Indeed. £350K? INKSPE.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    My butler is not going to be pleased at his salary being halved.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    The Prime Minister runs the entire country but gets paid a pittance in comparison.

    Should the PM also be on £3,500,000 + bonus? If they aren’t, should we fear all the talent leaving the public sector?

    Oh.
    Most MPs would stand even if they had to pay for the honour. The only reason they get a salary is so people who aren't independently wealthy can be MPs. Thin end of the wedge, that was.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by FIERCE TANK BATTLE View Post
    So, you're running your 100 million quid business, and you need a CEO that has experience of running businesses of that magnitude. You find a guy, he's damn good, boosting profits of numerous businesses from 100mil to 500mil in just 2 years. Even if he cost 100mil he'd be worth it, to mitigate risk and maximise profit.

    But you can only pay him £350k under the law.

    Meanwhile another business that's only 5 million quid needs help. They can't pay much, but they can pay £350k since that's chump change.

    What happens next? :S

    Likewise with it being public sector, the NHS needs a guy to fix their leaky ship that's pissing money away, but they can only pay £350k whereas a private firm can pay £3,500,000 + bonus... all the talent leaves the public sector...

    At least they can get Capita in to sort it out, I guess.
    The Prime Minister runs the entire country but gets paid a pittance in comparison.

    Should the PM also be on £3,500,000 + bonus? If they aren’t, should we fear all the talent leaving the public sector?

    Oh.

    Leave a comment:


  • edison
    replied
    Originally posted by FIERCE TANK BATTLE View Post
    So, you're running your 100 million quid business, and you need a CEO that has experience of running businesses of that magnitude. You find a guy, he's damn good, boosting profits of numerous businesses from 100mil to 500mil in just 2 years. Even if he cost 100mil he'd be worth it, to mitigate risk and maximise profit.

    But you can only pay him £350k under the law.

    Meanwhile another business that's only 5 million quid needs help. They can't pay much, but they can pay £350k since that's chump change.

    What happens next? :S

    Likewise with it being public sector, the NHS needs a guy to fix their leaky ship that's pissing money away, but they can only pay £350k whereas a private firm can pay £3,500,000 + bonus... all the talent leaves the public sector...

    At least they can get Capita in to sort it out, I guess.
    The problem is if you get one person in at say, £3.5m, the rest of the exec board would be on say 150-250k e.g. the FD. I can't think of many organisations where the CEO is earning 10-15 times the rest of the board. One person isn't going to fix the NHS either. You'd need to do something similar with hundreds of individual NHS trusts and commissioning groups. Before you know it, you've got to spend a billion pounds extra in staff costs.

    Even that isn't really going to help as there is a big shortage of frontline staff like doctors and nurses. It's easy to say, pay lots more in salaries to staff but it needs to come out of higher taxes. Lots of people say they want better public sector services but won't pay more tax for it. It's also too simplistic to say that all the talent works in the private sector. There are a lot of good people in the public/not for profit sector who have moved over from senior level private sector jobs.

    There are plenty of examples of private sector companies that pissed money away before going out of business so they're no different to the public sector - there are good efficient organisations and bad inefficient ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • VirtualMonkey
    replied
    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
    I'm not really convinced by that argument. First of all, it's rarely one individual who brings profit in, it's usually a combination. And even where it appears to be, it's damn hard to prove it was anything he did*. And finally, is he really worth 2000x more than the chump on a 50K salary?

    It's the same with wine. Does a £500 bottle of champers really taste 5 times as good as a £100 bottle. (The answer is no, for the benefit of poor people).

    Once you get to the executive level of major companies it's not so much to do with ability. It's just a way of keeping score, and those executives who fail just get another appointment with massively high remuneration. Take a look at what's happened with the Thomas Cook board members.


    * There are of course some with a proven track record, but they're a very small minority

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by FIERCE TANK BATTLE View Post
    So, you're running your 100 million quid business, and you need a CEO that has experience of running businesses of that magnitude. You find a guy, he's damn good, boosting profits of numerous businesses from 100mil to 500mil in just 2 years. Even if he cost 100mil he'd be worth it, to mitigate risk and maximise profit.
    I'm not really convinced by that argument. First of all, it's rarely one individual who brings profit in, it's usually a combination. And even where it appears to be, it's damn hard to prove it was anything he did*. And finally, is he really worth 2000x more than the chump on a 50K salary?

    It's the same with wine. Does a £500 bottle of champers really taste 5 times as good as a £100 bottle. (The answer is no, for the benefit of poor people).

    Once you get to the executive level of major companies it's not so much to do with ability. It's just a way of keeping score, and those executives who fail just get another appointment with massively high remuneration. Take a look at what's happened with the Thomas Cook board members.


    * There are of course some with a proven track record, but they're a very small minority

    Leave a comment:


  • filthy1980
    replied
    Originally posted by VirtualMonkey View Post
    one word...footballers
    they make terrible CEO's

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X