Nice Little Earner !

[tonyav]

I wonder if IDS pay's himself a bonus.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/dwp-staff-received-almost-%C2%A3140-million-in-bonuses-over-the-last-three-years/ar-CC4opo?li=AAaeUIW

[Prudie]

As a long time civil servant I can vouch that a bonus system of some sort has always been standard, usually through the appraisal system but not always. I'ts been considered a valid boost because of generally lower pay. Agree with it or not, that's opinion, but the fact is they are all paid for out of the pubic purse.

[Prudie]

whoops what an unfortunate typo :-)

[naomi24]

THECORBYLOON, //why should a bonus not be given? //

I’ve already explained why.

[jim360]

I mean the bit about "Civil Servants should not receive bonuses". There is no reason for them not to receive performance-related pay. It's been happening, as Prudie confirms, for ages, so this is nothing new. The only thing that is new is people suddenly caring about it. And, as I've said, there's plenty of other stuff going on that makes a Civil Servant's life at the moment pretty unpleasant. Those 48% cuts are from the current position that already represents a heavy amount of cuts to the public sector.

I was wrong earlier, by the way. In the DWP there have already been three occasions in which staff have had to reapply for their own jobs (not two), and there will be yet another one coming up shortly.

[fiction-factory]

It's not uncommon for employers to pay bonuses now to staff at all levels. It's a way of keeping basic pay down. It happens a lot in private companies. It can signals the end of annual 'cost of living' increases and annual increments or payments for extra responsibility. Employees are graded through performance appraisal and those who do well may get a bonus; those who don't do so well can get nothing. Employers like them because they can be used as a carrot/stick, they are not pensionable and they can be withdrawn/reduced easily if money becomes tight- much easier than cutting pay.
It's not just fat cats who get bonuses- it's administrators, supervisors etc too. However the bonuses do seem to be far more generous at the top end.

[naomi24]

Jim, //There is no reason for them not to receive performance-related pay.//

There is a reason - they don't generate the income to pay for it, and hence the taxpayer foots the bill. People who don't generate income in the private sector don't get bonuses, and companies don't end up out of pocket, so why should the taxpayer?

[fiction-factory]

Naomi- in my experience when administartors at the lower end get bonuses they are just giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The overall remuneration is no higher in my experience. It's smoke and mirrors and often used to obfuscate to hide lower pay in real terms. And if they meet targets to save public money what's wrong with some of the savings going to them to give them a level of pay that they deserve for the job they do

[naomi24]

They're paid for the job they do - and not so poorly either.

[ladybirder]

If I didn't do well in my job in the private sector I would have got the sack, not missed out on a bonus.

[fiction-factory]

Naomi- have you worked in an organisation that pays performance related pay? If you read my post from about 30 mins ago you'll see that performance related pay effectively results in people getting the proper rate for the job only if they meet targets and jump through hoops when required. Basic pay is effectively reduced and the performance pay makes up the difference

[naomi24]

Yes - and I've worked for the Civil Service.

[fiction-factory]

So do you disagree with performance related pay in the civil service? Should they receive full pay whatever performance levels they achieve - or maybe we should sack them all if they don't meet targets?

[naomi24]

They should do the job they're paid to do. If they don't they should be replaced by someone who will.

[fiction-factory]

And the same in the private sector? Should there be no performance related pay there either?

[ladybirder]

BTW, getting back to the original post, I have just this minute checked with a senior civil servant and it is a committee of CSs who decide on bonuses and only on the top level grade would a secretary of state be asked for his input.

[Hypognosis]

I remember reading something which said that, at the start of the 20th century, Civil Service was was a handsomely paid profession and there was heavy competition to obtain posts. However, it steadily fell behind, as the century rolled on until they actually struggled to recruit applicants.

Recruitment and retention problems have been cited as the reason why a non-contributory pension scheme (the old one) was put in place. If the salaries were 13.5% *lower* on a grade-for-grade basis than private sector then they would be on par with each other. (But who would pump that much of their salary into a pension, in their 20s, I wonder?)

In actuality, instead of being 13.5% lower, they were only marginally lower (at least colleagues I spoke to always believed they could get higher pay outside public sector but never made allowances for the fact that the pension subs would leave them with lower take home pay).

[THECORBYLOON]

If Nurse Smith suggests various initiatives resulting in a significant reduction in time spent in hospital treating a very common condition, should that not be recognised by a bonus?

[Hypognosis]

//
THECORBYLOON
NAOMI if staff surpass benchmarks such as number of claims cleared or decisions given in day on a regular basis, should that not be recognised by a bonus?
11:46 Sun 08th Nov 2015Report

naomi24
No.
11:50 Sun 08th Nov 2015Report
//

Applying naomi's argument to investment bankers, who, surely, are only "doing their job" would likely not go down well in certain quarters.

We would all *dearly love* to be able to sit in front of a computer all day, making millions on trading imaginary pieces of paper and gouging out hundreds of thousands of pounds(*) for ourselves in the process!! Of all the luck.

Other people get to flip burgers or sweep floors. What chance do they stand?

If bonuses really do exist "to motivate high performance" then set standards for satisfactory work output and bonus those who exceed that.

Or else the whole idea is another lie society tells itself.

[Hypognosis]

* Footnote:

I always wanted to know why banker bonused are so enormous; millions in a handful of cases.

Are they defined as non-taxable, or something? Otherwise the gubmint just swipes 40% (50% in the most recent financial boom) of the published amount.

Phrased differently, are they just a blatant remuneration package dodge?

If they get them every year then why don't we treat them as de facto salary?

A bonus for "exceptional performance" is fine but if it is *every year* then it is no longer exceptional; it has become routine.

[naomi24]

fiction-factory //And the same in the private sector? Should there be no performance related pay there either?//

That’s entirely up to the people who run the businesses. Their business - their money.

THECORBYLOON, Nurse Smith might well receive a one-off award in recognition of her outstanding initiative, but she shouldn’t expect an on-going annual bonus for doing the job she is paid to do.

Hypognosis, //Applying naomi's argument to investment bankers, who, surely, are only "doing their job" would likely not go down well in certain quarters.//

Investment bankers generate income - their bonuses are paid from that.

I’m repeating myself now. Unless anything different comes up, I’ll leave you all to it,