For the record, she got £201,824 and £33,176 in pension contributions. She won't be darkening the door of Lidl anytime soon. I wonder what the 2010-11 pay scales will reveal…
At least we're near the top of one league table, eh readers?
Showing posts with label academic pay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academic pay. Show all posts
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
Every penny well-deserved
The 2009-10 University Vice-Chancellors' pay figures are out, and - as we suspected - our Dear Leaderene has received a whopping 3.07%: rather more than our own 0.4%, and a proper recognition of her leadership skills, including, of course, the redundancies which saw 150 (and counting) of her staff forced out of their jobs because she and her executive 'didn't understand' the rules about what counts as a student, and had to repay the government £millions.
For the record, she got £201,824 and £33,176 in pension contributions. She won't be darkening the door of Lidl anytime soon. I wonder what the 2010-11 pay scales will reveal…
For the record, she got £201,824 and £33,176 in pension contributions. She won't be darkening the door of Lidl anytime soon. I wonder what the 2010-11 pay scales will reveal…
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Not quite all of us are in this together
Just been to my union meeting. The institution is targeting individuals for redundancy with blatant disregard for the law.
A few months ago, I had an exchange with the Vice-Chancellor about her pay (in the region of £230,000-240,000, or £100,000 more than the Prime Minister. She told us, in public, that she wouldn't take a pay rise this year.
My pay rise this year is 0.4%, about £5 per month. With inflation at 3.7%, I'm effectively receiving a pay cut of 3.3%.
The Vice-Chancellor's income has gone up by £7000: so even if she's 'only' on £230,000, she's had enough of a raise - 3.5% to keep pace with inflation.
Jolly good. Wouldn't want to price her out of Waitrose and collapse the local economy. At least I know that nothing she says can be believed.
A few months ago, I had an exchange with the Vice-Chancellor about her pay (in the region of £230,000-240,000, or £100,000 more than the Prime Minister. She told us, in public, that she wouldn't take a pay rise this year.
My pay rise this year is 0.4%, about £5 per month. With inflation at 3.7%, I'm effectively receiving a pay cut of 3.3%.
The Vice-Chancellor's income has gone up by £7000: so even if she's 'only' on £230,000, she's had enough of a raise - 3.5% to keep pace with inflation.
Jolly good. Wouldn't want to price her out of Waitrose and collapse the local economy. At least I know that nothing she says can be believed.
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Lies, damn lies… and Tory Scum
The government has released a list of all the public servants earning more than £150,000, i.e. more than the Prime Minister.
The idea is to shame them into taking pay cuts, or at least not pursuing pay rises. Ok, you might say, it's wrong for a civil servant to earn so much money - some are on £275,000 per year, though I reckon running the NHS, for instance, is a hell of a job.
Well, up to a point. The trick the Tories have pulled is to make the comparison with the Prime Minister, despite successive PM's freezing or reducing their salaries every year to make themselves look good in front of the voters (and it's easy for Cameron - he's a multimillionaire).
I'm a supporter of CEOs earning no more than 10-15 times the wage of the lowest-paid employee. But why are we humiliating the civil servants? Let's look at Bob Diamond (£80 million, despite the bank losing massive amounts) or Bart Becht, who 'earned' £90 million last year, 1374 times that of the average Reckitt Benckiser employee. Do these gentlemen work harder for £90m than they would for £10m? I bet they don't pay much tax either… If you read The Spirit Level, it turns out that more equal companies and states are more successful, and that the rich benefit from equality too!
Despite this subtle attack on the state from the Tories, there are definitely some employees whose greed is blatant and unsustainable - it's weird that many of the highest paid work in the Ministry of Defence, whereas the Treasury only has 4 top earners.
My boss is a prime example. She's on £230,000. That's several tens of thousands more than the Prime Minister before he took a pay cut. Now it's £100,000 more than the Prime Minister. That's £240,000 for getting us a massive fine from the government, £240,000 for sacking 150 people to pay the fine, £230,000 for cutting courses and dumbing-down the degrees. £230,000 for failure.
Except, of course that by her lights, she's a success. She's negotiated a massive salary. The end. It's just a business, and success is a matter of individual enrichment.
The idea is to shame them into taking pay cuts, or at least not pursuing pay rises. Ok, you might say, it's wrong for a civil servant to earn so much money - some are on £275,000 per year, though I reckon running the NHS, for instance, is a hell of a job.
Well, up to a point. The trick the Tories have pulled is to make the comparison with the Prime Minister, despite successive PM's freezing or reducing their salaries every year to make themselves look good in front of the voters (and it's easy for Cameron - he's a multimillionaire).
I'm a supporter of CEOs earning no more than 10-15 times the wage of the lowest-paid employee. But why are we humiliating the civil servants? Let's look at Bob Diamond (£80 million, despite the bank losing massive amounts) or Bart Becht, who 'earned' £90 million last year, 1374 times that of the average Reckitt Benckiser employee. Do these gentlemen work harder for £90m than they would for £10m? I bet they don't pay much tax either… If you read The Spirit Level, it turns out that more equal companies and states are more successful, and that the rich benefit from equality too!
Despite this subtle attack on the state from the Tories, there are definitely some employees whose greed is blatant and unsustainable - it's weird that many of the highest paid work in the Ministry of Defence, whereas the Treasury only has 4 top earners.
My boss is a prime example. She's on £230,000. That's several tens of thousands more than the Prime Minister before he took a pay cut. Now it's £100,000 more than the Prime Minister. That's £240,000 for getting us a massive fine from the government, £240,000 for sacking 150 people to pay the fine, £230,000 for cutting courses and dumbing-down the degrees. £230,000 for failure.
Except, of course that by her lights, she's a success. She's negotiated a massive salary. The end. It's just a business, and success is a matter of individual enrichment.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Insult to injury
Apparently, while universities offer us a 0.3% pay rise, Vice-Chancellors have averaged a 9% increase this year, to £194,000 (the same as the prime minister). Meanwhile, our (generous) pay rise of 5% last year is listed as a 'problem' by our own V-C in her presentation. I've written to ask what salary and pay rise she got. Think I'll get a reply?
Update: in 2007-08, she was paid £180,000: an increase of 24.8% on the 2006-7 salary of the previous incumbent (figures available here). How many students' fees is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)