Gordinho
Banned
Mate, the world is so fudged up I genuinely can't accept the legitimacy of any facts and figures any more, I just know I'd rather live in this country with our health service than without it.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
regional pay scales
- Thread starter Howard Webb
- Start date
Mate, the world is so fudged up I genuinely can't accept the legitimacy of any facts and figures any more, I just know I'd rather live in this country with our health service than without it.
I didnt say its the envy of the world because of medical success rates but because its free which it is.
johnola
Mauricio Taricco
A friend of my missus is a "head of school" at an adult education college in the west country. She is incredibly underemployed, she is often at home working on her self employed jobs as she only really has sufficient work to fill up one day a week, so she takes off weeks and weeks in summer in addition to her permitted holiday. She told us recently she has taken a brand new iPad4 out of the stores for her own personal use as it "was just sitting there". The door to her office is permanently closed, she has no teaching nor disciplinary duties.
And all this was after a consolidation review last year.
She would be on an the same pay scale as those in London haha.
And all this was after a consolidation review last year.
She would be on an the same pay scale as those in London haha.
Sheikh Ma Nuggets
Tony Parks
For a number of years, I worked as a consultant within a large Government department, only leaving about 6mths ago. I worked to a level which had full sight of financials; pay, non-pay & programme.
I can confidently, that 'regional pay scales' is nothing new. I drafted a costings report 4 years ago, using 'London vs National' pay metrics, to judge the savings of moving a 120 FTE IT unit up to York, ie: the North. They were simply base costings, and when I ran the other numbers through, the benefit was actually on the negative side, neutral at best. Needless to say, it was - rightly - shelved.
As for outsourcing cleaning services: they already are - usually to Interserve. However, just before I left, discussions were started on break-clauses, as the SLAs put in place were not deemed sufficient, for the price levied. In other words: some **** in Commercials fudged up.
As for contracting staff: the reason I wasn't replaced by a permanent member of staff, wasn't because they simply forgot about me, it was because of the simple fact that FTE figures must be compounded, ie: it's political; even though I was costing three times the salary that a permanent member of staff would, increasing your headcount is frowned upon. Skills-wise: I'm good at what I do, I'm extremely qualified, and I have the experience behind me. But I came across enough intelligent and sharp civil servants, to know that one could be found to replace me. No will to do that though, and that edict came from the top.
I think people need to understand the politics at play. Francis Maude can't seem to help but make wild, outlandish claims concerning contracts. He frequently makes them about IT contracts, and indeed did about the one I primarily looked after. Essentially his claim was that everything would be reviewed, costed too much, would be changed, etc etc... Which would be great, but except it's gonad*s. Without going into specifics; the 'mathematics' involved are such that you'd 'save' ?ú1m ... but that it would cost you ?ú2m more in another tower.
I used have this conversation with the Cabinet Office on a regular basis, as they put together a (really crap) spreadsheet to try and - I presume - gather a governmental-wide view of the IT costs involved; 'one size fits all' nonsense. My first critique was that the formulas were totally wrong, and my second was that - for commercial sensitivity - I couldn't share any of the financials at all. Pretty simple concept, I'd have thought? However, this was an official document, sent by his Private Office. You have to wonder what kind of impotent pricks are actually writing the flimflam he comes out with.
I like to feel that, having worked in that department - alongside private and public worker - for a number of years in an independent role, I have good experience to form some opinions. What I have come to find, is that - actually - it's the private sector who struggled most to 'get things done' and to take responsibility. All they were concerned with, was hiding behind lawyers - which is great, just not very collaborative or pragmatic. Some good eggs though; sharp brains, get things done, work with you, efficient. However, those who didn't come up to scratch weren't sacked - merely moved onto contracts with other clients.
My experiences with civil servants, is that they are keen to work, keen to challenge, and keen to save money - yet, where they differ from private sector, is in how they're hamstrung by the ridiculous bureaucracy and politics at play, usually at the top of the tree. Essentially, you've got some really good, sharp and energetic people simply being held back by nonsense going on above them. Do you get wasters? Yeah of course you do, but none more than the same wasters I'd see chewing the fat whenever I went over to the offices of the IT company.
I just didn't come across a great deal of difference: and this is comparing the biggest IT company in the world - with all the implied efficient ways of working considered - against a run-of-the-mill government department. Those claiming 'chalk and cheese' are talking gonad*s; either never worked in either side or un unison, or just like to run with an agenda. It's a fallacy though; I know it, because I seen it and worked with it first-hand, and for a number of years. Just seems like a very convenient argument, for those thinking they're getting a raw deal and the thin end of the wedge. Even in terms of pay: while the civil servants around me were being told to make do with paltry 1% rises at best, but often freezes - the contract with the IT company had a 5% uplift written into it - exclusive of market conditions - with a further 2%, just for revenue growth. That's not a bad old deal now is it?!
Some of you may remember that, a few years ago, I stated that the notion of driving savings though 'shared services' was a false one, and that it would soon come out in the wash. I think I read a few days ago that, it's cost over ?ú1bn to 'save' about ?ú120m - all under the auspices of 'shared services' driving efficiencies. It's a total nonsense, and all it ever does, is feather the nest of companies who have ex-SCS as board members. If you want to start a conversation about saving the taxpayer money, then you needn't look much further than some probity into the awarding of several outsourcing contracts. You're talking billions here, happily being tinkled away. If some of you can't help but get angry about waste, do some proper research with your spare time, and look into those contracts.
By the way, johnola, not that I'd in any way question the veracity of your anecdote - I'm sure it's 100% accurate. I'm just struggling to get my head around the college having a piece of technology 'in its stores' which Apple hasn't even invented yet.
I can confidently, that 'regional pay scales' is nothing new. I drafted a costings report 4 years ago, using 'London vs National' pay metrics, to judge the savings of moving a 120 FTE IT unit up to York, ie: the North. They were simply base costings, and when I ran the other numbers through, the benefit was actually on the negative side, neutral at best. Needless to say, it was - rightly - shelved.
As for outsourcing cleaning services: they already are - usually to Interserve. However, just before I left, discussions were started on break-clauses, as the SLAs put in place were not deemed sufficient, for the price levied. In other words: some **** in Commercials fudged up.
As for contracting staff: the reason I wasn't replaced by a permanent member of staff, wasn't because they simply forgot about me, it was because of the simple fact that FTE figures must be compounded, ie: it's political; even though I was costing three times the salary that a permanent member of staff would, increasing your headcount is frowned upon. Skills-wise: I'm good at what I do, I'm extremely qualified, and I have the experience behind me. But I came across enough intelligent and sharp civil servants, to know that one could be found to replace me. No will to do that though, and that edict came from the top.
I think people need to understand the politics at play. Francis Maude can't seem to help but make wild, outlandish claims concerning contracts. He frequently makes them about IT contracts, and indeed did about the one I primarily looked after. Essentially his claim was that everything would be reviewed, costed too much, would be changed, etc etc... Which would be great, but except it's gonad*s. Without going into specifics; the 'mathematics' involved are such that you'd 'save' ?ú1m ... but that it would cost you ?ú2m more in another tower.
I used have this conversation with the Cabinet Office on a regular basis, as they put together a (really crap) spreadsheet to try and - I presume - gather a governmental-wide view of the IT costs involved; 'one size fits all' nonsense. My first critique was that the formulas were totally wrong, and my second was that - for commercial sensitivity - I couldn't share any of the financials at all. Pretty simple concept, I'd have thought? However, this was an official document, sent by his Private Office. You have to wonder what kind of impotent pricks are actually writing the flimflam he comes out with.
I like to feel that, having worked in that department - alongside private and public worker - for a number of years in an independent role, I have good experience to form some opinions. What I have come to find, is that - actually - it's the private sector who struggled most to 'get things done' and to take responsibility. All they were concerned with, was hiding behind lawyers - which is great, just not very collaborative or pragmatic. Some good eggs though; sharp brains, get things done, work with you, efficient. However, those who didn't come up to scratch weren't sacked - merely moved onto contracts with other clients.
My experiences with civil servants, is that they are keen to work, keen to challenge, and keen to save money - yet, where they differ from private sector, is in how they're hamstrung by the ridiculous bureaucracy and politics at play, usually at the top of the tree. Essentially, you've got some really good, sharp and energetic people simply being held back by nonsense going on above them. Do you get wasters? Yeah of course you do, but none more than the same wasters I'd see chewing the fat whenever I went over to the offices of the IT company.
I just didn't come across a great deal of difference: and this is comparing the biggest IT company in the world - with all the implied efficient ways of working considered - against a run-of-the-mill government department. Those claiming 'chalk and cheese' are talking gonad*s; either never worked in either side or un unison, or just like to run with an agenda. It's a fallacy though; I know it, because I seen it and worked with it first-hand, and for a number of years. Just seems like a very convenient argument, for those thinking they're getting a raw deal and the thin end of the wedge. Even in terms of pay: while the civil servants around me were being told to make do with paltry 1% rises at best, but often freezes - the contract with the IT company had a 5% uplift written into it - exclusive of market conditions - with a further 2%, just for revenue growth. That's not a bad old deal now is it?!
Some of you may remember that, a few years ago, I stated that the notion of driving savings though 'shared services' was a false one, and that it would soon come out in the wash. I think I read a few days ago that, it's cost over ?ú1bn to 'save' about ?ú120m - all under the auspices of 'shared services' driving efficiencies. It's a total nonsense, and all it ever does, is feather the nest of companies who have ex-SCS as board members. If you want to start a conversation about saving the taxpayer money, then you needn't look much further than some probity into the awarding of several outsourcing contracts. You're talking billions here, happily being tinkled away. If some of you can't help but get angry about waste, do some proper research with your spare time, and look into those contracts.
By the way, johnola, not that I'd in any way question the veracity of your anecdote - I'm sure it's 100% accurate. I'm just struggling to get my head around the college having a piece of technology 'in its stores' which Apple hasn't even invented yet.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
Lawyers. :-s
Your experience of the private sector must be limited to working with the Crap Gemini's / Crapita's of this world?!
Believe me, they bear little or no resemblance to how most private sector companies operate.
In fact, from a cultural and process perspective, they are far more like public sector organisations than SMEs.
Just as inefficient, vast armies of inexperienced consultants with zero practical working knowledge (but a red brick degree in psychology or social science), managed by very average 'senior partners' counting down the years to retirement.
Dozens of pay grade layers, very few decision makers, thousands of man hours wasted in meetings and PowerPoint.....not even sure if that works on the iPad4
Sheikh Ma Nuggets
Tony Parks
No, IBM - the biggest IT company in the world.
Yes, lawyers - commercial ones. Ones which like to pour over a costing matrix, pretending they know it better than the person who designed it, ie: me. So, while having my time wasted by having to educate the mathematically incompetent, the business suffers and projects slip. My solution? Build-in givebacks to penalise prevarication: a polite way of saying 'stop fudging around'. It worked; oh boy did it work. Shouldn't have to resort to that level of stupidity though.
I'm now doing some advisory work with HP, and their contract with a different government department. Have only been gathering some information thus far yet, while the the govt dept get back to me super quick, it's like getting blood out of a stone from HP. It's not even hard information; simply SQL database queries - yet it takes aaaaaaaaaaaaaages to come through. Doesn't fill me with much confidence when it comes to getting my hands dirty in a few weeks time.
CapGem / Capita are both a little bit small fry for me mate.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
IBM. 
They employ about the same number of people of a small country!
Trust me, the private sector does not work like these behemoths
They employ about the same number of people of a small country!
Trust me, the private sector does not work like these behemoths
Leeds Spur
Banned
It's free in all the other countries bar USA. And better.
This envy of the world stuff is tripe
Leeds Spur
Banned
Capita employ more Uk staff that IBM.
Capgemini are in the brick as the UK contracts with The Met Police, ASPIRE, (HMRC) and the Environment Agency are not yielding anywhere near the numbers they need them to.
Even though they are a French business, as are Atos, they make the bulk of their profits from the UK business.
I would take all IT services back in house, and then share resource, especially around Datacenter......it's criminal not to.
They also have much higher levels of taxes in order to pay for better public services and generally a better work ethos. That's why they can do things like have bigger subsidies for trains and a cap on child nursery costs.
The Moonlit Knight
Banned
Sadly proven to be untrue. They may have higher income tax rates, but overall taxation the UK pays a punitive amount. And N.I. is rarely counted towards taxation but that's exactly what it is.
Leeds Spur
Banned
Income Tax is less than a quarter of total taxes.
There is ZERO evidence that higher taxes = better public services.