Southern Boss pay is doubled !?!

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Pussay Patrol 11 Apr 17 12.19pm
Originally posted by gambler Am i missing something? The article says his pay went up 0.4%. The thread says its been doubled? Alternative facts: [Link] Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

11 Apr 17 12.19pm

Originally posted by gambler

Am i missing something? The article says his pay went up 0.4%. The thread says its been doubled?

Alternative facts:

[Link]

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 11 Apr 17 12.27pm
Don't see where the doubling has come from but irrespective of who has to accept the majority of the blame (and my experience of Southern users and who they blame is very different to Southampton_Eagle) the idea that a boss who has overseen a deterioration in service and a worsening of industrial relations should have a pay rise seems laughable. I'm not against the idea of bosses earning high pay assuming they earn it. There was a story today about it being scandalous that some Council heads earned over £100k. They are in control of some of the most complex organisations in the country, employing hundreds or thousands of people. But you should get pay increases and bonuses based upon performance. Edited by OknotOK (11 Apr 2017 12.28pm) "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 11 Apr 17 12.27pm

Don't see where the doubling has come from but irrespective of who has to accept the majority of the blame (and my experience of Southern users and who they blame is very different to Southampton_Eagle) the idea that a boss who has overseen a deterioration in service and a worsening of industrial relations should have a pay rise seems laughable.

I'm not against the idea of bosses earning high pay assuming they earn it. There was a story today about it being scandalous that some Council heads earned over £100k. They are in control of some of the most complex organisations in the country, employing hundreds or thousands of people.

But you should get pay increases and bonuses based upon performance.

Edited by OknotOK (11 Apr 2017 12.28pm)

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Apr 17 3.58pm
Originally posted by OknotOK Don't see where the doubling has come from but irrespective of who has to accept the majority of the blame (and my experience of Southern users and who they blame is very different to Southampton_Eagle) the idea that a boss who has overseen a deterioration in service and a worsening of industrial relations should have a pay rise seems laughable. I'm not against the idea of bosses earning high pay assuming they earn it. There was a story today about it being scandalous that some Council heads earned over £100k. They are in control of some of the most complex organisations in the country, employing hundreds or thousands of people. But you should get pay increases and bonuses based upon performance. Edited by OknotOK (11 Apr 2017 12.28pm) I'm not against that per se, provided they return value in line with their salary and bonuses. I suspect they don't. Similarly, I don't have an issue with anyone earning a decent or even exceptional wage, if they're suitably valuable to an organisation. We shouldn't consider capping say a teachers wages to a set figure, but instead objectively set targets that increase their income based on performance (not necessarily targets). What we probably need to do, is avoid pushing people into specific career paths (such as management or being a Headmaster) simply because they've capped out their prospects as a teacher. If you've got a great teacher, or any worker, last thing you really want to do is push them into increasingly administrative roles. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 Apr 17 3.58pm

Originally posted by OknotOK

I'm not against the idea of bosses earning high pay assuming they earn it. There was a story today about it being scandalous that some Council heads earned over £100k. They are in control of some of the most complex organisations in the country, employing hundreds or thousands of people.

But you should get pay increases and bonuses based upon performance.

Edited by OknotOK (11 Apr 2017 12.28pm)

I'm not against that per se, provided they return value in line with their salary and bonuses. I suspect they don't.

Similarly, I don't have an issue with anyone earning a decent or even exceptional wage, if they're suitably valuable to an organisation. We shouldn't consider capping say a teachers wages to a set figure, but instead objectively set targets that increase their income based on performance (not necessarily targets).

What we probably need to do, is avoid pushing people into specific career paths (such as management or being a Headmaster) simply because they've capped out their prospects as a teacher.

If you've got a great teacher, or any worker, last thing you really want to do is push them into increasingly administrative roles.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Southern Boss pay is doubled !?!

Site Map

Sponsors