Labours legacy: 172 civil servant paid more then PM

A._Badger

MrTomato wrote: »

So he doesn't deserve his pay does he not? Because of failures by the managers he has delegated to and then the staff.

Are you a stranger to management accountability? If a CEO appoints bad managers he goes. That's how it works.

MrTomato wrote: »

Would you prefer a privatised healthcare system where corners would be much easier cut, you wouldn't get free at the point of entry care and have the bosses on more than twice than the boss is on now?

Due to budget constraints, the system can't be perfect. But it is good.

Budget constraints? Are you insane? The NHS has had money hosed at it in the past decade. And your 'privatised healthcare' straw man isn't the point. Overpaid idiots at the top and overworked staff in the middle and the bottom, is. Try asking some of them.

MrTomato

A._Badger wrote: »

Are you a stranger to management accountability? If a CEO appoints bad managers he goes. That's how it works.




Budget constraints? Are you insane? The NHS has had money hosed at it in the past decade. And your 'privatised healthcare' straw man isn't the point. Overpaid idiots at the top and overworked staff in the middle and the bottom, is. Try asking some of them.

And what is your experience to know its current funding isn't enough? Have you tried running the NHS from top to bottom? How much money does it take to turn enough, to too much, to money being hosed at it?

He isn't overpaid for his responsibility and task though, is he? He's on about twice that of a high-level consultant. If you lower the salary more, who is going to want to do it?

A._Badger

MrTomato wrote: »

And what is your experience to know its current funding isn't enough? Have you tried running the NHS from top to bottom? How much money does it take to turn enough, to too much, to money being hosed at it?

He isn't overpaid for his responsibility and task though, is he? He's on about twice that of a high-level consultant. If you lower the salary more, who is going to want to do it?

Read the following. Note the source. Then think again.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/shocking-death-toll-at-flagship-hospital-1828747.html

MrTomato

A._Badger wrote: »

Read the following. Note the source. Then think again.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/shocking-death-toll-at-flagship-hospital-1828747.html

And what's that got to do with you saying they're hosed with money? I'm saying they have limited resources and would function better with more funding causing less criticism for the CE saying he's overpaid.

And yes I accept that is terrible, but they can't be perfect. But for every good story, there's a bad one.

For example, the Freeman Hospital is one of the best places in the world for child heart healthcare but gets nothing like the press a dirty hospital would.

However, funding again restricts this. There are plans to close some of the centres like this. Plans to make free prescriptions for people with chronic illnesses have been delayed etc.

So the boss of the NHS of doing good in areas, and yes, bad in others, but like every other public organisation, only the negative areas get in the national press.

vivatifosi

marklv wrote: »

The right people need to paid enough for them to want to do the jobs and do them well. It's not a question of rewarding the 'star' people (I hate these terms), but of ensuring that pay matches level of responsibility.

I agree with you here marklv, which is why I don't have a problem with the bosses of really big departments such as the NHS earning large salaries. My problem is with those with far smaller departments or places like town councils earning not a great deal less.

The case has been made on this thread that those jobs should be comparable to those of Leahy et al in the private sector. But should the director of Hull City Council, for example, be earning just shy of £200k, almost the same as some of these people running far bigger departments?

I've been trying to find more up to date data for the past couple of days, but in 2006 Director Magazine showed that the then average salary for a director of what is classed as a "large" British company (ie one with a turnover of £50-500m) was:

Basic: £131,359
Bonus & dividend: 41,000
Performance-based review: 74 per cent (up from 71 per cent in 2005)
Last increase: 4 per cent; 2005 forecast: 3.5 per cent
2007 forecast increase: 4 per cent

If these people can be shown to be doing an exemplary job, then they should be remunerated accordingly, but that should include a very large performance based element and they should be as easy to fire as private sector directors.

Incidentally, in 2006-7, the head of Hull....
received a total of £213,162, although this included several one-off performance-related bonus pay awards.
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Hull+City+council+CEO+earning+2006&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=6caa5c396a2de38a

Yes he did a great job, yes he turned the council around, but in the light of the above actual average salaries in the private sector are some of these remuneration packages too generous? My argument is that they are targeting the wrong people, though arguably they could be targeting the Civil Service top earners first because it will then make the case against any others easier to make.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

it's more the much larger numbers of relatively junior bankers and traders earning £100k-£250k per annum who have had the largest impact on the london property market in my view. they are the reason that noone can afford a 2/3 bed place in a half decent area. we can certainly agree that a few highly paid public sector workers on top of that will have made no difference at all.

You are correct. It's interesting to note that, though the majority of junior to mid level traders earn basics of £50-80k, the bonus is normally 100% of basic or more.

marklv

A._Badger wrote: »

And if some Tesco or Sainsbury branches were as poorly, wastefully and disgustingly run as some of our hospitals, he'd be out of that job in minutes.

You should come and see my local Tesco and Sainsbury!! :rotfl:

marklv

A._Badger wrote: »

Are you a stranger to management accountability? If a CEO appoints bad managers he goes. That's how it works.
Budget constraints? Are you insane? The NHS has had money hosed at it in the past decade. And your 'privatised healthcare' straw man isn't the point. Overpaid idiots at the top and overworked staff in the middle and the bottom, is. Try asking some of them.

Who the hell are you to call people 'overpaid idiots'? Maybe you are one of them!

Actually it is the doctors who are overpaid. We pay doctors more than any other country in Europe, purely as a bribe so that they can be 'imported' from abroad as needed. What we need is more university places for UK medical students, less foreigners in the medical profession and salaries that are benchmarked against those in similar Western European countries.

Bottom line: we need more doctors and more pay restraint for them. No unknown foreign doctors like that African-German guy, already past his retirement age, who caused the death of an innocent patient.

kabayiri

marklv wrote: »

Quite right: it isn't your business. The right people need to paid enough for them to want to do the jobs and do them well. It's not a question of rewarding the 'star' people (I hate these terms), but of ensuring that pay matches level of responsibility.

So we agree. I can't directly influence civil servants pay and it's none of your business what the bankers in a private sector outfit like Barclays earn

Glad we cleared that up.

marklv

kabayiri wrote: »

So we agree. I can't directly influence civil servants pay and it's none of your business what the bankers in a private sector outfit like Barclays earn

Glad we cleared that up.

It is none of my business but I have the right to express an opinion, as do you of course.