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.
Logging in...
Previously on "What were you doing when Thatcher was at the peak of her power?"
The point you are missing is that now we know the emperor has no clothes. IT Contractors for years claimed that they were doing something special that needed rare skills which need to be remunerated specially.Now we know that was a pile of crap.
If the tax-payer owned banks suddenly stopped using contractors do you think they'll suddenly go bust? (They're already performing badly in spite of huge tax free pay.) I reckon nothing at all would happen that cheap bobs cannot do for a loaf of bread.
True it may hard to hold onto experienced contractors, but surely they're the ones you want to get rid off to get a new mentality in.
Why should RBS shackle itself by paying lower than the market rates for its people just because it is owned by the taxpayer?
Or do you think that because they are a public company they should pay less because it is "unfair to lesser low earning plebs like you?
I am not much of an economics bod but surely an investment bank needs to pay about the same as other investment banks or they will just end up with the people no other banks want?
The point you are missing is that now we know the emperor has no clothes.
Bankers for years claimed that they were doing something special that needed rare skills which need to be remunerated specially.Now we know that was a pile of crap.
If the tax-payer owned banks suddenly stopped bonuses do you think they'll suddenly go bust? (They're already performing badly in spite of the bonuses.) I reckon nothing at all would happen in the immediate term.
True it may hard to hold onto experienced staff, but surely they're the ones you want to get rid off to get a new mentality in.
I am not much of an economics bod but surely an investment bank needs to pay about the same as other investment banks or they will just end up with the people no other banks want?
Why do you think SASguru can only get contracts in the public sector?. Even the welfare industries like to produce stats on how much SASguru and his cronies are costing the taxpayer
I am not much of an economics bod but surely an investment bank needs to pay about the same as other investment banks or they will just end up with the people no other banks want?
Leave a comment: