OK for one, but not for the other

Graham_Devon

To start this thread, I have to say I disagree with housing payments for people earning this much money as a matter of principla. I don't see why, having earnt so much, they can't pay for their own house like the rest of us do.

However, while the head of the BOE, Mark Carney get's 250k a year (1.25m in total) towards housing costs, it's seen as "unfathomable" and Vince Cable had become "annoyed" when he learned that he head of the Royal Mail, Moya Greene had received one payment of £250,000 for housing costs.

This was on top of a basic salay of 498k, 200k in liee of apension and 400k under a short term incentive plan (which appears to include paying for flights so she can go away on holiday).

So, while both are, in my mind, outrageous, howcome one is having to pay the money back as it's wrong, but one continues to enjoy the payment?

chucknorris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To start this thread, I have to say I disagree with housing payments for people earning this much money as a matter of principla. I don't see why, having earnt so much, they can't pay for their own house like the rest of us do.

However, while the head of the BOE, Mark Carney get's 250k a year (1.25m in total) towards housing costs, it's seen as "unfathomable" and Vince Cable had become "annoyed" when he learned that he head of the Royal Mail, Moya Greene had received one payment of £250,000 for housing costs.

This was on top of a basic salay of 498k, 200k in liee of apension and 400k under a short term incentive plan (which appears to include paying for flights so she can go away on holiday).

So, while both are, in my mind, outrageous, howcome one is having to pay the money back as it's wrong, but one continues to enjoy the payment?

I don't really have a problem with those examples as they are part of a package offered and paid by their employer. What I do have a problem with is people like Bob Crow who lives in a social housing property, it isn't that I dislike him, it is that people on his salary of £145k should not be able to live in social housing, there are far better deserving cases than him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1390037/Earn-145-000-like-Bob-Crow-Then-forget-council-house.html

custardy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To start this thread, I have to say I disagree with housing payments for people earning this much money as a matter of principla. I don't see why, having earnt so much, they can't pay for their own house like the rest of us do.

However, while the head of the BOE, Mark Carney get's 250k a year (1.25m in total) towards housing costs, it's seen as "unfathomable" and Vince Cable had become "annoyed" when he learned that he head of the Royal Mail, Moya Greene had received one payment of £250,000 for housing costs.

This was on top of a basic salay of 498k, 200k in liee of apension and 400k under a short term incentive plan (which appears to include paying for flights so she can go away on holiday).

So, while both are, in my mind, outrageous, howcome one is having to pay the money back as it's wrong, but one continues to enjoy the payment?

No surprise
I know of a Delivery Sector Manager in Scotland who has just got a promotion to a job in London
Massive payrise,housed with payments for flights home
Also family will be flown down at times where is required to stay in London
Moya was brought in for privitisation. Hence why she wanted nothing to do with a pension

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To start this thread, I have to say I disagree with housing payments for people earning this much money as a matter of principla. I don't see why, having earnt so much, they can't pay for their own house like the rest of us do.

However, while the head of the BOE, Mark Carney get's 250k a year (1.25m in total) towards housing costs, it's seen as "unfathomable" and Vince Cable had become "annoyed" when he learned that he head of the Royal Mail, Moya Greene had received one payment of £250,000 for housing costs.

This was on top of a basic salay of 498k, 200k in liee of apension and 400k under a short term incentive plan (which appears to include paying for flights so she can go away on holiday).

So, while both are, in my mind, outrageous, howcome one is having to pay the money back as it's wrong, but one continues to enjoy the payment?

If I agreed a pay & benefits package with my employer and Vince Cable retrospectively objected I'd invite him to 'do one'.

lvader

PasturesNew wrote: »

If you can't afford to pay for the housing you want, you don't take the job. Fact. That's how it works for the rest of us.... you know the salary, you balance that against the cost of living close by/where you want ... and you choose.

Can't afford it?
Tough. Plenty more able applicants where that one came from.

That's how it works for people with less money.

It seems the more you've got, the more freebies you get tossed.

Actually in the real world a relocation allowance is very normal, even for people far less important than the governer of the BoE.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PasturesNew wrote: »

It seems the more you've got, the more freebies you get tossed.

No.

The better you are at what you do, the more employers will compete to recruit you, rather than you competing for the attention of your employer.

chewmylegoff

lvader wrote: »

Actually in the real world a relocation allowance is very normal, even for people far less important than the governer of the BoE.

We recently paid relocation costs for a junior person at work. I think it was a one way standard class flight and a week in a travelodge whilst they flat hunted. Not quite the same as paying their entire housing costs for the duration of their contract...

Not that I have a massive issue with it as it is no different to paying a CEO more than a shelf stacker. Employers will pay what they need to in order to attract the right people.

It's the public sector which gets it so wrong, hiring uninspiringly crap people and rolling out the red carpet when there were plenty of other uninspiringly crap people they could have hired without it. They usually get stung on the way out as well when the rubbish person manages to elect themselves a huge pension payment on the way out when they are asked nicely to do one after 2 years of gross incompetence.

Loughton_Monkey

I was hired to go to the Far east on a 3 to 5 year contract [I stayed 6 years]. Apart from a decent salary and bonus, my package also included car and accommodation. The rental costs for apartments in Korea/Shanghai exceed that for similar UK places, so I would not have accepted the deal if I had to pay for accommodation.

The icing on the cake, however, was that they paid for me to ship my entire belongings over there, and back again, leaving me free to earn 24K plus on rental income on my main house here without suffering furniture wear and tear.

So I see nothing wrong (in principle) with what was negotiated here, although the amounts concerned are probably taking the pi$$.

CKhalvashi

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So I see nothing wrong (in principle) with what was negotiated here, although the amounts concerned are probably taking the pi$$.

I'm with this.

There's nothing wrong with a payment of £2000 a month; especially as these are essentially government roles!

CK

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

... Vince Cable had become "annoyed" when he learned that he head of the Royal Mail, Moya Greene had received one payment of £250,000 for housing costs.
....

Which she has how agreed to repay.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-mail/10218554/Moya-Greene-will-repay-250000-perk-to-buy-a-house-after-Vince-Cable-said-he-would-have-vetoed-it.html

Funky_Bold_Ribena

antrobus wrote: »

Which she has how agreed to repay.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-mail/10218554/Moya-Greene-will-repay-250000-perk-to-buy-a-house-after-Vince-Cable-said-he-would-have-vetoed-it.html

:T:T:T

Yes, hence the last line of the OP.

'So, while both are, in my mind, outrageous, how come one is having to pay the money back as it's wrong, but one continues to enjoy the payment?'

That's the point of the thread, she is paying it back whilst he isn't.

See - the thread is about the inconsistency in the issue.

Otherwise it would read 'why don't these two pay it back'.