Bonus's

W1

Rolf F wrote:

Repeat a few times and of course the project manager ends up running the company, despite never having achieved anything that has actually helped the organisation, and is adored by W1

These sorts of responses are usually from people in dead-end jobs who haven't, and won't ever, achieve anything of note, yet look upon their more successful colleagues with envy and scorn.

It's a peculiar British attitude to ridicule success, usually from those who are unsuccessful.

Not that I'm saying Rolf is like that or anything, obviously.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Never achieved anything that has helped the organisation? Have you ever worked in a significantly large team that completed a complex project on time and on budget *without* a project manager/project lead? Someone has to herd the cats

No but I've seen a fair few more that have failed on either time or budget or both despite the presence of perfectly capable project managers. I've also worked on a fair few where from the very beginning it was quite clear the project manager was happy for the project to fail, providing it failed in a managed and controlled way, in fact they made a career from it.....

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Never achieved anything that has helped the organisation? Have you ever worked in a significantly large team that completed a complex project on time and on budget *without* a project manager/project lead? Someone has to herd the cats

No but I've seen a fair few more that have failed on either time or budget or both despite the presence of perfectly capable project managers. I've also worked on a fair few where from the very beginning it was quite clear the project manager was happy for the project to fail, providing it failed in a managed and controlled way, in fact they made a career from it.....

How do you make a career from that? Just asking. For a friend.

Wallace1492

Sketchley wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Never achieved anything that has helped the organisation? Have you ever worked in a significantly large team that completed a complex project on time and on budget *without* a project manager/project lead? Someone has to herd the cats

No but I've seen a fair few more that have failed on either time or budget or both despite the presence of perfectly capable project managers. I've also worked on a fair few where from the very beginning it was quite clear the project manager was happy for the project to fail, providing it failed in a managed and controlled way, in fact they made a career from it.....

Think I know what you mean, though would not class them as failures, just did not deliver what was required, came in over budget, and well behind schedule. They were dressed up as sucesses when they were actually failures, and those involved got a handsome reward and went on to manage more "failures". However, often the deliverables are completely unrealistic, so managing some sort of comprimise is seen as a succeess.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Never achieved anything that has helped the organisation? Have you ever worked in a significantly large team that completed a complex project on time and on budget *without* a project manager/project lead? Someone has to herd the cats

No but I've seen a fair few more that have failed on either time or budget or both despite the presence of perfectly capable project managers. I've also worked on a fair few where from the very beginning it was quite clear the project manager was happy for the project to fail, providing it failed in a managed and controlled way, in fact they made a career from it.....

How do you make a career from that? Just asking. For a friend.

For example, you weigh the project down with documentation, procedures and contingency planning, making it more and more complex to the point that project will run over budget to complete in it's current form, at which point you point out that none of this is your fault as you've just flushed out the full extent of the requirement. Then the client either has to increase budget or can the project. Big external consultancy firms have adopted this approach for years, a very good example is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15014288

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

For example, you weigh the project down with documentation, procedures and contingency planning, making it more and more complex to the point that project will run over budget to complete in it's current form, at which point you point out that none of this is your fault as you've just flushed out the full extent of the requirement. Then the client either has to increase budget or can the project. Big external consultancy firms have adopted this approach for years, a very good example is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15014288

Fair enough, but isn't that just a case of commissioning stakeholders not holding the consultancy firms to the deliverables?

SimonAH

The correct level at which to set a salary is just fractionally north of what would make the employee move elsewhere. Pay any more than that you are wasting money, pay any less and you lose your talent.

Judging this value is, I guess, an art.

Whether this value is paid as salary or bonus is almost immaterial - only that if a significant proportion of salary is bonus then your employees have nowhere to hide regarding performance.

rolf_f

W1 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Repeat a few times and of course the project manager ends up running the company, despite never having achieved anything that has actually helped the organisation, and is adored by W1

These sorts of responses are usually from people in dead-end jobs who haven't, and won't ever, achieve anything of note, yet look upon their more successful colleagues with envy and scorn.

It's a peculiar British attitude to ridicule success, usually from those who are unsuccessful.

Not that I'm saying Rolf is like that or anything, obviously.

I've avoided the management route because, quite honestly, I'm not interested. Unlike you, I don't know everything about everything but I do know a bit about my organisation.

Furthermore, despite being paid well under the 40% tax threshold, I am not particularly motivated to earn more. I want to be interested in my job - additional cash would be a bonus but I know it won't improve my satisfaction in life.

On the other hand, you are a brainless idiot. Sorry, but there are plenty of folk on here who I can enjoy a complete difference of opinion but entirely respect their opinion. You seemingly never offer any kind of rational justification for your opinions other than to witter on endlessly about 'the politics of envy' and spout worthless speculation about things you know nothing about as though they are fact. I mean really, you are seem to be a truly wretched, dreary person who values nothing but success in terms of the contents of a persons paypacket.

As for success - in technical terms I am about as high in the organisation as I can get (partly because re-organisations repeatedly remove senior technical roles yet end up by increasing the number of management roles. Probably, in my area, I am rather more successful than you are but I'm sure you get paid more - and if so I'm happy for you as it will mean more to you than me.

BTW - I have done project management myself and I know how hard it is. The point is though that I stay afterwards and make sure that the consequences of my project have, and continue to serve some useful purpose. I don't undertake projects just for self serving purposes.

SimonAH

And anyway, bonuses, bonus's.......no, I reckon it should be bonae :-D

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

And anyway, bonuses, bonus's.......no, I reckon it should be bonae :-D

Thats what Greg, W1 and DDD will all be trying to hide when they watch The Iron Lady.

SteppenHerring

I think it's clear that we aren't paying bankers enough.

I mean, you have to pay top dollar to get clever people. The current morons are buying ABN Amro, writing CDSes against Greek sovereign debt, giving loans and credit cards to single mothers on the dole. Pay more and we might get some decent talent.

SimonAH

It's interesting by the way...have you seen this site?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

If asked to judge I would have said that I was right of centre, but took this and found myself in the bottom left quadrant.

I then went back through the questions and asked myself how my answers today would have compared to my answers at 25 years old - it was a bit of a surprise to be honest. I appear to have migrated towards a bit of a socialist/humanist view of the world over the last couple of decades.

You still couldn't make me vote for labour at the moment with a cattle prod mind you!

W1

Rolf F wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Repeat a few times and of course the project manager ends up running the company, despite never having achieved anything that has actually helped the organisation, and is adored by W1

These sorts of responses are usually from people in dead-end jobs who haven't, and won't ever, achieve anything of note, yet look upon their more successful colleagues with envy and scorn.

It's a peculiar British attitude to ridicule success, usually from those who are unsuccessful.

Not that I'm saying Rolf is like that or anything, obviously.

I've avoided the management route because, quite honestly, I'm not interested. Unlike you, I don't know everything about everything but I do know a bit about my organisation.

Furthermore, despite being paid well under the 40% tax threshold, I am not particularly motivated to earn more. I want to be interested in my job - additional cash would be a bonus but I know it won't improve my satisfaction in life.

On the other hand, you are a brainless idiot. Sorry, but there are plenty of folk on here who I can enjoy a complete difference of opinion but entirely respect their opinion. You seemingly never offer any kind of rational justification for your opinions other than to witter on endlessly about 'the politics of envy' and spout worthless speculation about things you know nothing about as though they are fact. I mean really, you are seem to be a truly wretched, dreary person who values nothing but success in terms of the contents of a persons paypacket.

As for success - in technical terms I am about as high in the organisation as I can get (partly because re-organisations repeatedly remove senior technical roles yet end up by increasing the number of management roles. Probably, in my area, I am rather more successful than you are but I'm sure you get paid more - and if so I'm happy for you as it will mean more to you than me.

BTW - I have done project management myself and I know how hard it is. The point is though that I stay afterwards and make sure that the consequences of my project have, and continue to serve some useful purpose. I don't undertake projects just for self serving purposes.

Oh boo.

Does that mean you still won't give me a job?

You should probably read the last line of my post, before you go all "ad hom" on me.

EDIT - actually I think I've provided pretty rational (albeit arguable) justifications for most of my views, especially after Grandpa told me off. Just because you don't agree that envy is a real cause of much political spin, doesn't make it irrational.

And no-where did I say, or have I said, that success is measured in £. It is notable that this is your conclusion and interpreation of my views, largely perhaps because you want this to be what I'm saying.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

And anyway, bonuses, bonus's.......no, I reckon it should be bonae :-D

Thats what Greg, W1 and DDD will all be trying to hide when they watch The Iron Lady.

1. Anything that colony across the Atlantic put out in homage to the motherland while well meaning is usually crass and vulgar.

2. It doesn't have Colin Firth in it so the films credibility as an unreservedly homage to all thing Biritish is lost.

3. I'm not Tory blue. I'm Blue Labour. Or a Red Tory (a new political concept I'm toying with). I believe that you need the political rights view point on fiscal matters but these need to be tempered with the lefts sense of societal values.

I'm not a fan of redistributing wealth. I don't think you or the state or the public should have a say on things like inheritence or bonuses and salaries within the private sector.

At the same time I do think the Government has a responsibility to provide and own the fundamentals of maintaining society i.e. transport, education (incl. youth clubs, state nursery, and libaries, swiming pools etc), health, police/emergency services and an army. I also think the Government should at least own one bank, which provides support and sensible lending to the poorest/vulnerable, which isn't completely profit driven.

I don't think people should see benefits as a viable alternative to working. £30,000k is far too much and £26,000 is ample.

I think we should all be paying as close to a flat tax as we can. Or have more tax brackets to achieve the same effect. I don't think a person should ever pay 50% or more on any part of their salary. If there isn't enough tax money coming in, spend less tax corporations/businesses/people with multiple property more.

I'm a fan of ancestory and rewarding excellence thus I believe in grammar schools and private schools alongside state schools and would bring back assisted places.

I would lower tuition fees, I would make the entrance criteria into Uni harder.

I would place emphasis on manufacturing and the vocational courses and jobs found within that industry.

I would make this Country great again

Vote DDD.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

And anyway, bonuses, bonus's.......no, I reckon it should be bonae :-D

Thats what Greg, W1 and DDD will all be trying to hide when they watch The Iron Lady.

1. Anything that colony across the Atlantic put out in homage to the motherland while well meaning is usually crass and vulgar.

2. It doesn't have Colin Firth in it so the films credibility as an unreservedly homage to all thing Biritish is lost.

3. I'm not Tory blue. I'm Blue Labour. Or a Red Tory (a new political concept I'm toying with). I believe that you need the political rights view point on fiscal matters but these need to be tempered with the lefts sense of societal values.

I'm not a fan of redistributing wealth. I don't think you or the state or the public should have a say on things like inheritence or bonuses and salaries within the private sector.

At the same time I do think the Government has a responsibility to provide and own the fundamentals of maintaining society i.e. transport, education (incl. youth clubs, state nursery, and libaries, swiming pools etc), health, police/emergency services and an army. I also think the Government should at least own one bank, which provides support and sensible lending to the poorest/vulnerable, which isn't completely profit driven.

I don't think people should see benefits as a viable alternative to working. £30,000k is far too much and £26,000 is ample.

I think we should all be paying as close to a flat tax as we can. Or have more tax brackets to achieve the same effect. I don't think a person should ever pay 50% or more on any part of their salary. If there isn't enough tax money coming in, spend less tax corporations/businesses/people with multiple property more.

I'm a fan of ancestory and rewarding excellence thus I believe in grammar schools and private schools alongside state schools and would bring back assisted places.

I would lower tuition fees, I would make the entrance criteria into Uni harder.

I would place emphasis on manufacturing and the vocational courses and jobs found within that industry.

I would make this Country great again

Vote DDD.

So the only thing that makes you blue or tory, is being against wealth redistribution. Yet you're advocating the spending of tax revenue to "provide and own the fundamentals of maintaining society". Thats clear wealth redistribution because the only way you could afford that is by increasing tax revenues...

You're red through and through! If you think simply being against waste in the welfare system makes you blue then you don't share the same view of red as I do :P

DonDaddyD

I've won the left! Something no Tory has ever been able to do.

notsoblue wrote:

So the only thing that makes you blue or tory, is being against wealth redistribution. Yet you're advocating the spending of tax revenue to "provide and own the fundamentals of maintaining society". Thats clear wealth redistribution because the only way you could afford that is by increasing tax revenues...

You're red through and through! If you think simply being against waste in the welfare system makes you blue then you don't share the same view of red as I do :P

No I wouldn't increase taxes. It's always about taking more with the left. I would spend the money differently. I don't believe Government should be as heavily involved in peoples lives as Labour was, I don't believe in the large scale benefits. I don't believe in mansion tax, inheritence tax or the 50% tax rate.

Public sector pensions are a way of compensating for the lack of bonuses, an incentive to get the best people. It shouldn't be. The offer on the table is generous. My only change is that I would want it to be final salary. With it being Final salary based I'd be willing to make even more concessions.

I'd also redefine the role and responsibilty of trade unions.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

No I wouldn't increase taxes. It's always about taking more with the left. I would spend the money differently. I don't believe Government should be as heavily involved in peoples lives as Labour was, I don't believe in the large scale benefits. I don't believe in mansion tax, inheritence tax or the 50% tax rate.

Public sector pensions are a way of compensating for the lack of bonuses, an incentive to get the best people. It shouldn't be. The offer on the table is generous. My only change is that I would want it to be final salary. With it being Final salary based I'd be willing to make even more concessions.

I'd also redefine the role and responsibilty of trade unions.

I feel like I like your ideas, but they don't stand up to much scrutiny...

"I don't believe Government should be as heavily involved in people's lives as labour was"
So what is the right amount of involvement? Name three things that the government is involved in now that it shouldn't be... Without answers to these two things you've basically just said: "More freedom!"

"No I wouldn't increase taxes. It's always about taking more with the left. I would spend the money differently."
But if there have been cuts to public services and benefits with taxes remaining fairly static, then how would you get the revenue to support benefits like childcare, cheaper uni tuition, youth clubs, swimming pools and libraries? All these things have been cut because apparently we can't afford them. How would you afford them?

And reforming the welfare system doesn't go against leftwing politics per se (pretty easy to find professional lefties, e.g. social workers, nurses, who disagree with various aspects of the welfare system and would suggest improvements), but reducing it strictly for the purpose of saving money is. Are you saying that you'd do more with the current level of funding? Or that you would do more with less funding?

Public sector pensions are a way of compensating for the lack of bonuses, an incentive to get the best people.
Why not allow the free market to come in and provide the services that public sector bodies are currently responsible for? Competition will encourage efficiency thus ensuring the best value for money.

This is fun!

sfichele

This thread seems to have derailed slightly. The key point is why should anyone get a bonus?

I have seen the Bonus culture rise in the last 10 years or so. Was a time that (we in the Banking sector) got Profit Sharing. Now, this was good. If the bank made money, then we all got to share in the profits, if it didn't, then we got nowt.

The OP's statement makes sense, bonuses should be something that is paid in exceptional circumstances, or when the company out performs expectations, or turns a profit.

I work in the computer-games industry. We get bonuses but ONLY if the game is a huge success and turns a large profit. Our last game (Crysis2) didn't make any net profit -> therefore no bonus, despite working a massive amount of overtime and weekends (without additional pay).

However, if you are a banker you get bonuses for doing a standard job. The attitude is if the job is done okay then a massive bonus is expected. However, if its done badly then a small bonus is expected because that's the culture.

okgo

W1 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Repeat a few times and of course the project manager ends up running the company, despite never having achieved anything that has actually helped the organisation, and is adored by W1

These sorts of responses are usually from people in dead-end jobs who haven't, and won't ever, achieve anything of note, yet look upon their more successful colleagues with envy and scorn.

It's a peculiar British attitude to ridicule success, usually from those who are unsuccessful.

Not that I'm saying Rolf is like that or anything, obviously.

Agreed. Its a very British thing to hate people who do well.

The same reason you'll get your car keyed, yourself spat on in a drop top, etc etc.

As Rick said, banking as I'm told by a freind in the industry did work like a sales job, but the basics were still GOOD salaries, but it wasn't much different to how a normal sales job would work, just bigger numbers.

jds_1981

sfichele wrote:

However, if you are a banker you get bonuses for doing a standard job. The attitude is if the job is done okay then a massive bonus is expected. However, if its done badly then a small bonus is expected because that's the culture.

Nah, you get a bonus for doing a good job, you eventually get laid off for doing an okay job

tailwindhome

Can't be ar5ed reading this thread too.

I presume that rogue apostrophe has been mentioned?

Applespider

I work for a company that gives out bonuses that are company related. We do well - and we get a % of profits. We do less well - we get less. And should we ever make a loss, we'll get nowt. People doing a bad job are expected to be managed out of the business in any case thus, in theory, everyone in the business is contributing to the profits.

The worst project managers in my book are the ones who rush things and cut corners and leaves the poor sods who likely objected about the corner cutting to pick up the pieces when things go awry a few months later. Meanwhile, they've had their successful launch party and have swanned off to their next project.

sketchley

SimonAH wrote:

It's interesting by the way...have you seen this site?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

If asked to judge I would have said that I was right of centre, but took this and found myself in the bottom left quadrant.

I then went back through the questions and asked myself how my answers today would have compared to my answers at 25 years old - it was a bit of a surprise to be honest. I appear to have migrated towards a bit of a socialist/humanist view of the world over the last couple of decades.

You still couldn't make me vote for labour at the moment with a cattle prod mind you!

+1

First.Aspect

SimonAH wrote:

And anyway, bonuses, bonus's.......no, I reckon it should be bonae :-D

If it is awarded more than 90% of the time in a financial crisis, should it be called a bonus at all?

Oh, the sun came up today. Bonus.

Agent57

In 22 years, I've only had one job that gave bonuses. It was my first job, and every year, 7% of the annual profits went into a pool, and every employee got a share. It was based on salary, I think; but given there were only about 7 or 8 of us, I still did OK. \o/

Never had any sort of profit share or bonus since, that I can recall. Bastards.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It's interesting by the way...have you seen this site?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

If asked to judge I would have said that I was right of centre, but took this and found myself in the bottom left quadrant.

I then went back through the questions and asked myself how my answers today would have compared to my answers at 25 years old - it was a bit of a surprise to be honest. I appear to have migrated towards a bit of a socialist/humanist view of the world over the last couple of decades.

You still couldn't make me vote for labour at the moment with a cattle prod mind you!

+1

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

So also bottom left quadrant. Not enormously left.

Wouldn't say it's particularly accurate given some of the questions.

First.Aspect

SimonAH wrote:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

If asked to judge I would have said that I was right of centre, but took this and found myself in the bottom left quadrant.

Its a US political compass. The National Xenophobic Religious Fundamentalist Party is regarded as a bunch of namby pamby liberals in some states.

porlyworly

I'm inbetween Ghandi and Mandela

DonDaddyD

This is fun.

notsoblue wrote:

"I don't believe Government should be as heavily involved in people's lives as labour was"
So what is the right amount of involvement? Name three things that the government is involved in now that it shouldn't be... Without answers to these two things you've basically just said: "More freedom!"

You've got me here.

"No I wouldn't increase taxes. It's always about taking more with the left. I would spend the money differently."
But if there have been cuts to public services and benefits with taxes remaining fairly static, then how would you get the revenue to support benefits like childcare, cheaper uni tuition, youth clubs, swimming pools and libraries? All these things have been cut because apparently we can't afford them. How would you afford them?

There have been cuts and the Country is borrowing just as much as it did pre-cuts. 1: It is attempting to pay the deficit too fast. 2: What is it spending the borrowed money on, personally I think it is spending money on easing the cost of changes imposed by these cuts.

Say it with me. "It is not about needing more money. It's about how the money we do have is being spent". If you make it legislation that every Council must have at least 1 library and 1 Swimming pool then I guarantee you through efficiency savings and changing where the money goes they could provide just that.

Childcare, instead of costly child maintenance I would use that money to provide vouchers to parents who want to put their children in nursey. Instruct schools or offer tax concessions to companies who provide day care/nursery for staff. This would encourage those who don't work because childcare costs make it pointless, to work.

Like NHS Foundation Trust that can generate it's own revenue but not use what it spends for profit (but must make a surplus) I would push through a legislation giving Universities more of the same freedoms.

And reforming the welfare system doesn't go against leftwing politics per se (pretty easy to find professional lefties, e.g. social workers, nurses, who disagree with various aspects of the welfare system and would suggest improvements), but reducing it strictly for the purpose of saving money is. Are you saying that you'd do more with the current level of funding? Or that you would do more with less funding?

I would change the way funding works. I would give people less over a shorter period of time. I would shape it so that it was an incentive to get people working.

Public sector pensions are a way of compensating for the lack of bonuses, an incentive to get the best people.
Why not allow the free market to come in and provide the services that public sector bodies are currently responsible for? Competition will encourage efficiency thus ensuring the best value for money.

Because currently the NHS is restricted to providing a service. It does this without the focus of profit making be it pushing one particular brand of medication or having a bigger market share than it's next leading competitor. What can and in someways can happen is a sort of sector complacency which sees organisations coasting and striving for the best or pushing the boundaries. The NHS needs to go through a reform and I personally feel an injection of private sector competitiveness has done it wonders.

That said I would have no problems working for a private firm providing NHS services as long as there was legislation and laws that meant that the company couldn't short change the patient to increase it's profit margin.

This is fun![/quote]

dodgerdog

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Public sector pensions are a way of compensating for the lack of bonuses, an incentive to get the best people.
Why not allow the free market to come in and provide the services that public sector bodies are currently responsible for? Competition will encourage efficiency thus ensuring the best value for money.

This is fun!

Unfortunately most PS pensions are paid out of general taxation and not as a result of money being paid from the relevant Dept of State into a ring-fenced pension fund that can then be used as a self-supporting investment fund. To carve them out and allow the competitive market to run them would require many billions of money to be extracted from the public purse at the initiation phase.