How much will I be paid for this consultancy work?

[john]

I suggested a couple:

 

1) Bulk purchasing of desktops/laptops through the LEA forced upon us twice a year. If we are honest, all of our basic spec for Desktops and Laptops are about them same. Once budgets were in, the LEA could see how many PC's were to be bought and approach some suppliers (Local ones included if not preferential)

 

2)Bulk Purchasing of the Microsoft Taxthrough the LEA. I've spoken to Microsoft about this, and they are happy to hold a mater agreement over an LEA. Even if it's only 50p per machine we save that's a lot of money!

 

Some LAs do this already, but many individuals find that they don't get better value from them. It sounds good on paper but it isn't that good at times.

[GrumbleDook]

Some LAs will arrange bulk purchases, but there are costs for doing so, for the procurement and legal aspect, for the administration and finance side ... there are also things like OPEN to get prices too. Even if you don't purchase through these models at least you have a price you can then haggle from ... but remember that when you do cost comparisons then you also have to include your time in the TCO.

[enjay]

I don't want to get drawn into a lengthy debate on foreign wars - as I don't think any of us are suitably knowledgeable on the specifics for that - but one thing which we should consider with the Afghanistan war is that if it wasn't happening there, it just might be happening on city streets here, so maybe the Armed Forces are doing something which affects, i.e. benefits, us.

 

Can I ask why we're just picking on bankers with £750k+ salaries and bonuses? That just smacks of a want for some vengeance because we've lost savings. Also, let's not be so naive as to think that any increase in the amount that banks pay, either corporately or that their staff pay in added taxation, won't come out of the amount they charge their customers in fees. Make the banks pay more, and your credit cards' interest rates will go up.

 

Not sure nationalising services is necessarily the way to go, but it is certainly worth having someone look at the question. The advantage of a private company doing these things is that they have share-holders to answer to; this does mean they're required to make money, but also means there's more emphasis on delivering results.

 

Personally, I'd rather see the money we're frittering away on general mis-handled spending dealt with before we look at the more radical options; "looking after the pennies", I guess. Rather than looking for a £1bn project to axe, how about getting every Department to cut wastage by 1%? That would be much easier, would deliver massive results and would also buy some time to investigate properly the way to kill the £1bn project.

 

Also, the beauty of cutting wastage is that it wouldn't actually affect the end result. Think of all our teachers who just love doing full page prints on 50p/page inkjet printers. Now, we could (and in the long-term should) try and stop them doing this, but in the meantime, we could point them at a 5p/page laser printer. That I think will yield better results - and bigger savings - in the long-run.

[Rydra]

The problem with privatisation, is it has to make a profit. You can see this in all the schools tupee'ing support staff over to private companies. In the end, either people are going to lose their jobs, or it's going to cost us more money (since we're still paying for those who join the other companies, just that now that company has profits to think of).

 

Originally, services used to make profit so it could do better or more services. This fell apart when the idea of bonuses and expenses came in, and when some idiot gave the senior management control over them.

 

If it's one thing i've learnt over the years of private, public, contracting, projects, and even outside of RL jobs and working.... Our bursar's/finance officers would never decide to pay our heads a few thousand as a bonus 'because they've been so good this year'. Why should we let those who run our other services, that we rely on do the same thing?

 

I don't think I made £50 in interest on my savings account in the last year. So why should the CEO of my bank be given half a million 'bonus' this year? where has that money come from?

 

I would bet if you traced our national debt, and that of most of the other countries, you'd find it in the pockets of a small handful of stupidly obscenely rich men, who are deciding wheither to platinum plate their custom built Mercedes, diamond encrust their 80 bedroom house, or gold plate their private jumbo jet with built in jacuzzi.

[featured_spectre]

IF you look at my post, it wasnt just a blanket on bankers who earn 750K or more, it affected all bankers on 250K+.

 

As for bankers putting up interest rates on credit cards, well people shouldnt use them if they cant afford the repayments, its that simple. I learnt the hard way and I am still paying off for my ex's card happy spending. I have a whole heap of suggestions, which if I put forward as a full document, would probably end up around 10 pages, simply for the fact that everywhere could cut spending and waste, and certain taxes could be increased without major uproar.

 

If you want, I can draft up the document for yours (and others) perusal.

 

*edit* I am writing up a cut down version just to show what I would do and how much it would draw in.

Edited June 28, 2010 by featured_spectre

[featured_spectre]

quick mock up of what I would do.

 

 

 

This is a draft of what I would do to cut the deficit the country is in.

 

Please note that all of my calculations are done based on current published figures available to the public via the HMRC website, DFES website and other such sources, and it is done over a 1 year projection, with a 5 year projection at the end.

 

Taxes

 

It is obvious some taxes would need to be increased to make up some of the shortfall in this country. VAT is one of them, however I would have put it in line with other European countries at the 21% mark – which is average across the EU, and this would draw in £3.1 Billion after 1 year.

 

National Insurance I would increase to 12% (from 11%), and increase employer contributions from 12.8% to 13%, this would draw in a further £800m over 1 year.

 

Capital Gains tax stands currently at 18% for individuals, I would increase this by 0.2%. For companies it stands at 25%, I would increase this by 0.1%. They might seem small and insignificant, however it would draw in approximately £2.1 Billion in 1 year.

 

Tobacco Duty currently sits at 16p per cigarette. I would increase this by 1p per cigarette, which would draw in around £1 Billion over 1 year.

 

Beer and Cider Duty currently sits at 12p per unit of Alcohol. I would increase this by 2p per unit, which would draw in approximately £1.8 Billion over 1 year.

 

Wine Duty currently sits at 8p per unit of Alcohol. I would increase this by 4p per unit, which would draw in approximately £2.1 Billion over 1 year.

 

Spirits Duty currently sits at 9p per unit of Alcohol. I would increase this by 3p per unit, which would draw in approximately £1.9 Billion over 1 year.

 

Cuts

 

I would withdraw our soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, which would save the government approximately £68 per soldier per day (averaged out over all of the serving soldiers, and ranks, rates of pay etc). There are currently 18’000 soldiers deployed on the front lines globally, so this would save £12M a day, or £4.46 Billion per year.

 

I would reduce the NHS Budget by 5% across the UK, however, I would reintroduce prescription fees for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, to make up for it, so it cancels itself out.

 

I would introduce a 10% education purchasing budget cut, and cap wages for teaching staff to £35’000 for teaching staff, £40’000 for HODs, £45’000 for Deputy/Assistant Heads, and £50’000 for Heads. This would reduce staff pay for some, but increase it for others, and would save the government approximately £1.3Billion over 1 years based on current average wages.

 

Benefits

 

All benefits would be available to UK citizens only, and all benefits would be stopped apart from the following.

 

• Child Benefit - (which would be capped to a maximum of 3 children per parent)

• Unemployment benefit - (which would be capped to a maximum of 1 year and you have to prove you are looking for work)

• Disability benefit - (with which you must get a full medical check and full medical documentation every year to keep claiming)

• Housing Benefit (which would be capped to £250 per month for 1 bedroom accommodations’, £300 for 2 bedrooms, £350 for 3 bedrooms and upwards).

• Child / Working Tax credits – to stay as they are.

 

With all other benefits cut completely, the above restrictions alone would save the government approximately £8.9 Billion over 1 year.

 

 

Total savings over 5 years by my calculations are approximately £27.4 Billion over 1 year, or £137 Billion over 5 years.

[GrumbleDook]

Bonuses have been around for a heck of a long time, but one of the things which has happened over the years is that supposedly salaries did not go up as much as some companies or sectors could do it, and instead the difference was made up in 'bonuses' ... frequently with a variety of targets included in there ... some pretty easy to achieve, others not so.

 

For many people in this culture the bonus is effectively seen as their salary ... and is not really a bonus anymore, but performance related pay. In many companies the bonus is no longer for going above and beyond ("hey ... you did a fantastic job and increased our income by 20% so have a bonus") but now people get it for not messing up.

 

Also, the salaries we hear about in the news for bankers (investment bankers to be honest) is usually for a minority, not the majority. Attacking everyone in the banking sector is not fair really, the same way that attacking all teachers because you are not happy about the standards of CVs you get (yes ... looking at you, BT!)

 

I don't have a problem with a consultant being paid £x if there aren't the skills available or if a council has no staff available (eg new Govt target comes along, the team that deals with that target is already up to their necks ... they need someone for 3 months to do some work so why pay to recruit someone long term when you can hire someone for the equivalent of 6 months' salary but then get rid of them?)

 

This is the problem with Project Managers ... there are not enough around usually and rather than each team have one then councils will have a floating group of them. You save on consultant costs, but you lose on that they are not linked into specialisms (eg a PM who understands technology and networks is often very different to one who understands health and social care) and there are times when specialism is really needed.

[enjay]

With you on most points there, Nephilim.

 

I don't agree with the prescription charges, as I would like to see these scrapped altogether and instead paid from NI - my other half spends a lot of money on asthma inhalers which, whilst they might seem trivial, can literally be the difference between life and death; not quite sure why we pay for life-saving medication she takes at home, but hospital-based treatments come out of central taxation.

 

Also, I don't think your pay scales, especially for some Headteachers, are viable. In some very "challenging" schools, I'm sure the Headteacher, and numerous other staff, earn well over your thresholds, but I for one wouldn't do their job for the figures you propose, especially when they could go off to a nice gentle fluffy school and earn the same amount.

 

Not having seen your workings, but are your military savings correct? Remember that soldiers get paid a salary all year round, so all you'd save is their in combat supplement, whatever that's called.

 

One thing I would add to the list is to re-assess the number of civil service contractors. Fully accepting Tony's point about hiring someone for 3 months, but what about the people who are forced to retire at 60 and then come back the next week as consultants, and remain there for another 5 or 10 years, moving departments periodically to avoid the laws preventing repeated renewing of fixed-term contracts?

[featured_spectre]

the combat supplement works out more expensively, I was only basing my figures on front line deployment bonus only (regardless of job, EG medic, IT support, vehicle driver etc), if you are adding combat supplement, you can add a further £4000 per soldier that is on the front lines.

 

As for pay scales, if you look at one of my first posts in this thread, you'll see why I say what I say.

[creese]

my other half spends a lot of money on asthma inhalers which, whilst they might seem trivial, can literally be the difference between life and death; not quite sure why we pay for life-saving medication she takes at home, but hospital-based treatments come out of central taxation..

 

Does the prepay card cover these? I got one last year as up until a couple of months ago I was taking up to 12 tablets and about 6 or 7 different drugs.

[featured_spectre]

prepay does cover inhalers, as my ex was on them, along with various other pills, although she did have to go through hoops to get her repeat prescriptions for them!

[creese]

prepay does cover inhalers, as my ex was on them, along with various other pills, although she did have to go through hoops to get her repeat prescriptions for them!

 

That's disgusting. Do they thing they are used for fun?

[Rydra]

The point of education is it SHOULD be equal for all public schools. If a school is a bad one, sure move someone in who will be a better manager. But no need to pay them silly money.

 

A school with a falling grades and poor discipline would benefit more from a head earning £50k and competant, and 20k to put towards improving other aspects, than a 70k head that is probably just as good as the one earning 50k. 20k is 2 more TA's the school could have.

[jamesb]

The point of education is it SHOULD be equal for all public schools. If a school is a bad one, sure move someone in who will be a better manager. But no need to pay them silly money.

 

A school with a falling grades and poor discipline would benefit more from a head earning £50k and competant, and 20k to put towards improving other aspects, than a 70k head that is probably just as good as the one earning 50k. 20k is 2 more TA's the school could have.

 

By that logic, the manager of a small shop (say a Tescos Metro) should earn the same as the manager of a larger one (larger Tescos, say Extra). Jobs are not equal across all schools - a more challenging school needs more incentive to attract people, otherwise they'll all go for the easier jobs. They may not all get those jobs, but the better ones will, so you end up with a lower quality of staff at schools where a higher quality of staff is needed.

 

Would you expect a network manager of a school with a small network (say 30 PCs) to earn the same as a network manager at a school with 400 PCs and a few dozen laptops?

[enjay]

Does the prepay card cover these? I got one last year as up until a couple of months ago I was taking up to 12 tablets and about 6 or 7 different drugs.

 

It does, but I don't think it is quite cost-effective in her case, as she only takes a few puffs each day. The prepay cards do at least make prescriptions cheaper, but I still don't see why she should pay at all.

[Rydra]

The size and type of the school will always have an affect on things. But the quality of the school, or the staff member should not.

 

By the above arguement, if a person applies as a technician with 4 MS certs, 3 Cisco and a doctorate in computing, they should be paid twice as much as the other technician in the school who's straight out of college, and been there 5 years. They both have the same job spec, the same responsibilities, but because the other one is "better" you should pay him more?

If the new technician takes on MORE responsibilities, or does a higher grade of work, then they are suitable for more pay.

 

There should not be a higher or lower quality of staff. We all teach the same things, or manage the same computers one way or another. Our ability to do the job we're paid for shouldn't affect the salary, only how long you hold the job for.

 

If things aren't working under your management you shouldn't be paid for it. You shouldn't have people paid more simply because they aren't incompetant at the job they were paid to do.

 

The key word here, is shouldn't. We are unfortunately in a place where this shouldn't doesn't hold for all cases.

[jamesb]

The size and type of the school will always have an affect on things. But the quality of the school, or the staff member should not.

 

The quality of the staff member should definitely have an effect on things. If I'm better at my job, I should get paid more than someone who is poor at the same job.

 

By the above arguement, if a person applies as a technician with 4 MS certs, 3 Cisco and a doctorate in computing, they should be paid twice as much as the other technician in the school who's straight out of college, and been there 5 years. They both have the same job spec, the same responsibilities, but because the other one is "better" you should pay him more?

If one of them is friendly, efficient, hard-working, knowledgeable and interesting in increasing their skills to better their work and the other isn't then yes you should pay them more. Whether that's the one with qualifications or the one with experience is a different matter.

 

If the new technician takes on MORE responsibilities, or does a higher grade of work, then they are suitable for more pay.

Yep. Equally if they are simply better at the job they are doing.

 

There should not be a higher or lower quality of staff. We all teach the same things, or manage the same computers one way or another. Our ability to do the job we're paid for shouldn't affect the salary, only how long you hold the job for.

So what you're saying is, if I work hard, do the job well and work harder still to do it better then I should not be rewarded more substantially than someone who simply breezes by doing the minimum that they have to? Wasn't that the philosophy they tried in the USSR?

 

If things aren't working under your management you shouldn't be paid for it. You shouldn't have people paid more simply because they aren't incompetant at the job they were paid to do.

 

I agree. Someone should not be rewarded for simply doing their job. If, on the other hand, they do it exceptionally well and go above and beyond what they are expected to do then they should be rewarded for that.

 

There are more options than simply incompetent and competent.

 

The key word here, is shouldn't. We are unfortunately in a place where this shouldn't doesn't hold for all cases.

Thank goodness. I, personally, am rather glad that if I work harder I'm rewarded for it by more than a sense of self-satisfaction and well-being. It gives me a reason to try and get better still at the job I'm doing. You're saying that this shouldn't be the case?

[Guest theeldergeek]

The quality of the staff member should definitely have an effect on things. If I'm better at my job, I should get paid more than someone who is poor at the same job.

 

Don't you let a Union man hear you say that or anyone who would care to shout 'equal rights' loud enough for management to hear.

 

If you are "better" at your job than the next employee, then the employer needs to either investigate why the other employee may not be performing so well.

 

An employer will be expecting 100% from you for the remuneration on offer. If you choose to do the job at 110%, that's your look out. It could result in a promotion and rise in pay scale, but it certainly doesn't mean you should automatically get paid more for doing the same job as someone else only better. If you do get a pay rise/promotion, your job is likely to change to reflect this, e.g. more responsibility, supervisory duties etc.

 

The only exception I can immediately think where you will earn more than a colleague doing the same job, is commission based sales, but the base salaries are generally all the same.

 

Personal reward is a lot different to gainful reward.

 

Look up "Single Status pay award" on Google.

Edited June 28, 2010 by theeldergeek

[GrumbleDook]

Another exception for doing the same job but getting different wages are where it is linked to the same scale, but due to years of service one person is on a higher point that the other. However, the idea is that there is an upper point on the scale and eventually they will be on the same wage.

[SpuffMonkey]

Bonuses have been around for a heck of a long time, but one of the things which has happened over the years is that supposedly salaries did not go up as much as some companies or sectors could do it, and instead the difference was made up in 'bonuses' ... frequently with a variety of targets included in there ... some pretty easy to achieve, others not so.

 

I suspect problems were exacerbated with the disconnection between shareholders and management. When shareholders actually viewed themselves as the "owners" of a firm, they kept a close eye on whether management were taking "liberties" with company funds. When shares became just a trading chip, there was no one in the structure to say a firm "No" and firms started to be run for the sole benefit of upper management - not a viable long term situation imho

[featured_spectre]

here here spuffmonkey. When shareholders were limited to a handful of people, bonuses were done for the right reason, excellent performance, above and beyond what was expected, now they are handed out just for doing the job right (or nearly right)