Forum menu
This is a cultural thing with the NHS.
I know of at least one case of negligence that resulted in the guilty parties being sacked and struck off, but then given a massive payout to not take it to a tribunal.
The NHS doesn't like scandal and is a soft touch when it comes to stuffing people's mouths with gold.................
According to payscale.com, it is.
Is actually true though? It says:
National Salary Data (?)
£0 £50K £100K £150K
Salary
£41,423 - £97,582
Bonus
£960 - £20,691
Profit Sharing
£5.07 - £19,489
Total Pay (?)
£42,685 - £108,068
Makes it sound like it's within the normal bounds Total Pay for the role. Searching for HR directors job adverts they often have suggested salaries around that level.
The NHS doesn't like scandal and is a soft touch when it comes to stuffing people's mouths with gold.................
Erm... You might want to look again at how this was handled because I can't think of a way in which you could be any further from the right end of the stick.
You might have a point there Danny, if that wasn't completely not what happened. They fought it all the way through the courts and lost.
Well if you will insist on using blunt averages like that then you are bound to come to this conclusion. If on the other hand you were to compare with similarly positions (i.e. very large companies) and included the entire remuneration package (i.e. more than just salary) you might have an opinion worth considering.
Well if you had actuially bothered to look at payscale.com, you might actually have managed to know what you're talking about and made a valid point. But you failed on all counts. Pat yourself on the back 🙄
Makes it sound like it's within the normal bounds Total Pay for the role.
What? Do you understand the concept of SCALE? How is being right at the very very top (as I quite clearly stated), "par for the course" or "normal"?
A very large company will be 4-5 times the size of a trust. Not comparable.
Conclusion; some folks really want to have a go at this woman and since they've totally failed on a couple of fronts are now fixating on her salary, which is completely un-****ing-relevant. But if you've got your peanut ready to throw it'd be a shame to waste it.
What? Do you understand the concept of SCALE? How is being right at the very very top (as I quite clearly stated), "par for the course" or "normal"?
Well it's £10000 off the "very, very top" for a start.
There really is some awful people out there.
Conclusion; some folks really want to have a go at this woman and since they've totally failed on a couple of fronts are now fixating on her salary
Not true, I have absolutely no issue with the lady at all. I have only said that we overpay some of our civil servants, and we do. Normal STW scenario, the unionised cannot possibly be doing anything wrong in communistrackworld eh?
Well it's £10000 off the "very, very top" for a start.
The report I saw said she was earning £100K.
I'd be want them to be able to go to HR and I would expect them to have tools and procedures already in place. I would hope they would then follow those procedures and use those tools. If that then failed, as it sounds like happened in this case, I'd be blaming the CEO and HR director for creating an environment in which this can happen.
What does any of this actually mean?
some people's first reactions are to victim blame rather than condemn the assholes who framed her, harassed here called her a whore for rejecting their advances...
Indeed. And she got payed too much anyway. 🙄
The report I saw said she was earning £100K.
Total Pay (?)
£42,685 - £108,068
Well it's £10000 off the "very, very top" for a start.
NHs, so no bonus, no share options, no company car scheme.
And she got payed too much anyway.
Apparently, being paid a decent wage is one of the benefits of a decent education.
NHs, so no bonus, no share options, no company car scheme.
But 30-35 days annual leave, very high level of job security and a defined benefit pension scheme that's worth around 40-50% of salary. Which makes the £100K NHS role equivalent to a £150-£160K role in the private sector.
Blimey I need to have a word with my boss as I don't seem to be on that pension scheme.
very high level of job security
You have realised you are commenting ona person sacked who had to take the employer to tribunal to get justice
Its seems reasonable to point out that job security was not one of the benefits she received.
we overpay lots fo folk yet some on STW only want to say thins when its a public sector worker otherwise its what the market wil l supportI have only said that we overpay some of our civil servants, and we do.
Normal STW scenario, the unionised cannot possibly be doing anything wrong in communistrackworld eh?
Yah its the playground debate of straw men ad homs
No its thick squaddie moronic attack time...helpful eh 😕
TBH whether she was paid £1 or £1 million its an absolute red herring in terms of this issue and it leaves one wondering why folk are doing this.
Where do you get the annual leave figure from? Highest in my part of civil service is 28 and that is with 10 years service
we overpay lots fo folk yet some on STW only want to say thins when its a public sector worker otherwise its what the market wil l support
Looks like daft laboratory cleaner time to me :wink:. The "rich" are vilified on here routinely. Bankers, politicians, even people earning over the national average have been poked and sneered at as "rich". Investors, landlords etc etc. By the same rules, this woman is rich and was before the pay out. Yet, as she is A-OK because she is a civil servant. Had she worked for HSBC as a HR manager earning £100K, I sincerely doubt that many on here would be defending her salary as robustly as they are.
What happened to her is dreadful. There is no excuse for the perps disgusting behaviour. That is absolutely by the by and not what I have spoken about at all.
agreedI sincerely suspect that many on here wouldn't be defending her salary as robustly as they are.
Damn stealth edit noticed.
I think her salary is probably excessive too wrecker - it's far from the most important thing about this story though. Maybe some people are more annoyed because it's a woman earning that much. 😉
Good luck to her...
...however I am not a junior doctor earning a lot less. I might be less charitable if I was.
Not that this has anything to do with the case either, but more about the value that is placed on certain functions.
STW is an amazing place - that folk know her and the context and facts involved in this case so well is truly incredible 😉
Blimey I need to have a word with my boss as I don't seem to be on that pension scheme.
Drac, if you're in the public sector you're probably already in "that" pension scheme.
Nearly all public sector schemes are still "defined benefit". There's no risk attached to your final pension payment and the value of the "mitigated investment risk" represents a very significant premium anyone else would have to pay outside the public sector (up to 10 times the value - see link below).
Most public sector schemes require employee contributions of 5-15% but to get the same benefit "outside" their contribution would be 40% or more. That "gap" is effectively the employer contribution.
Another comparator - most private sector schemes attract an employer contribution of 3-5% of salary and are defined contribution i.e. the final pension scheme value has risk attached to it. I've just checked and the value of my own money purchase pension fund has gone down 20% in 6 months - that will be pretty typical for anyone outside the public sector but most in the public don't have a clue about the real value of the pension (or if they do - it never comes up in context of overall pay!)
So the £100K HR director whether she realised it or not has total remuneration of £160K+ just as anyone on £40K in the public sector on a DB scheme is actually on a £65K ish as a comparison with a private sector role with a 5% employer co-pay.
https://www.pensioncorporation.com/news-media/press/55-your-salary-real-value-defined-benefit-p
So this isn't about a woman being sexually harassed, bullied enough at work to be forced to quit and feel vulnerable. It's about how lucky she should feel to being paid a fair wage and attract a good pension? That some makes her wage 50% more.
Maybe some people are more annoyed because it's a woman earning that much.
I doubt it but you never know. I think £100K is a LOT of money. The PM only earns £140K-odd. £100K is demonstrably at the top of what her role pays throughout the market. It's not a fair wage, not when we're footing the bill, this isn't remotely about her, the point is that there are LOADS of NHS managers. She may very well be at the top of her profession, and there may be many organisations who will pay that for her, but the NHS shouldn't be one of them. It really doesn't need the absolute very best of anything except care givers.
I made an observation from the article about £100K being a lot for a HR manager (which it is). I didn't mean to detract from what has happened to the poor lady.
I work in HR, and 100k for an HR directors role in a large organisation seems about correct. There will be many HR employees in the industry that I work in that earn about that as a package, my HR director for example I'd expect to be on significantly more. Its a pretty big job, not as if they are just running payroll and dealing with the odd grievance here and there.
The issue of her pay however is completely irrelevant to her treatment.
That said 8 times her salary in a payout does seem particularly high based on the information available.
It really doesn't need the absolute very best of anything except care givers.
Who are completely competent in running a massive organisation.
Oh wait, they're not.
THAT is why you need the best. You can have the best staff in the world but if your executives are dullards you end up with Comet, Woolworths and whatever other failed business you care to mention.
Just5minutes
Go and take your prejudice elsewhere. I joined the civil service in 2003 and those pensions were already a thing of the past to new starters then, and the pension I got then has now been closed and replaced with a worse one. Sure, some long serving people still have them, but even they are being phased out and transferred over on an ag related basis.
Re job security - in those 12 years I have twice been transferred to other roles/agencies as offices and jobs are closed/lost.
Luckily I still have 30 days leave, but if I move to another role within the civil service I will lose at least 2 of thos to put me on the new terms.
Still generous I know, but the ignorance and prejudice about the public sector on here never ceases to amaze me. If it's so cushy, how come you aren't all climbing down from your high horses and queueing up to come and join us?
*And I'm only a tiny bit jealous that she's on 4 times my salary.
or engineers or bankers or whatever it is the company really does. yet every large company [ and none are larger than the NHS] sees the need to have a HR departmentIt really doesn't need the absolute very best of anything except care givers.
One may as well argue that the army does not need high quality support or decent generals as long as the troops are ace it wont matter-- imagine fighting the wrong war with poor equipment and supplies not reaching you eh that wont affect it as long as the troops are the best. IMHO its a pretty daft thing to argue.
I dont disagree that its a very high wage however, the reality, whether i like it or not, is that is what they have to pay to get the best/decent employees. Blaming the NHS for this is also daft.
One may as well argue that the army does not need high quality support or decent generals as long as the troops are ace it wont matter-- imagine fighting the wrong war with poor equipment and supplies not reaching you eh that wont affect it as long as the troops are the best. IMHO its a pretty daft thing to argue
*cough*
Iraq? 😉
THATS THE JOKE !
the serious point being the lack of appropriate equipment and protective vehicles actually cost lives.
The PM only earns £140K-odd
PM is a useless benchmark because 1) they do it for power not money 2) there's only one pm 3) it leads onto a lifetime of directorships, speaking opportunities, consultancy gigs and bringing peace to the middle east
Bloody smart wimmin.. Earning more than us blokes and not even prepared to prostitute themselves in a bid to justify a big salary..
It's political correctness gone mad!
or engineers or bankers or whatever it is the company really does. yet every large company [ and none are larger than the NHS] sees the need to have a HR department
Quite, but we aren't talking about (for example) the HR Director for the NHS, just a trust, and there are loads and loads and loads of companies larger than Derbyshire NHS trust.
One may as well argue that the army does not need high quality support or decent generals as long as the troops are ace it wont matter-- imagine fighting the wrong war with poor equipment and supplies not reaching you eh that wont affect it as long as the troops are the best. IMHO its a pretty daft thing to argue.
It has been known! But even then, you don't need the UK's pre eminent logistitian to get the right kit to the right place at the right time, nor a fellow if the institute of accountants to get the right amount of money into the right bank accounts at the right time of the month.
The top 1% are an extravagance IMHO. A £65K p/a "average" HR director would likely have been able to manage that job.
You make a good point wrecker..
Throw her to the lions the greedy SLAAAAAAAAG!
I'm with you yunki...silly little woman getting upset (sic) over a bit of sexual harassment.. She should have just been glad she's earning a salary that women aren't really supposed to get...needs to be put back in her place...
Quite, but we aren't talking about (for example) the HR Director for the NHS, just a trust, and there are loads and loads and loads of companies larger than Derbyshire NHS trust.
Smashing but that really isn't relevant at all is it.