brightspark
Member
- Messages
- 41,425
- Location
- yarm stockton on tees
plumbers normaly do that if they send there lads on a gas safe course so they dont just get a free ticket and nash off to someone else with more pay
- Thread starter Keith 66
- Start date
The salary budget is normally subject to fairly strict rules. Furthermore they can get rid of contractors without too much bother and they don't figure in the headcount, which is another important measure. The problem comes when they can't get rid of the contractors because they've been there for years and they're the only ones who know how the rickety mess works. What can also happen is that they fire someone for whatever reason, then it turns out they were working on something critical, so they're invited back as contractors on their own terms.
It seems to be a big company/big organisation thing that the budget has to be spent and it's a very serious thing to have an underspend. There are no excuses for underspending. Something cancelled at the last minute which affects what the manager had budgeted for, too bad, there should have been a contingency plan to get it spent. If that happens and it's a very serious underspend, the money will be spent, even if it means buying things for other departments.
Years ago I had a manager who had a £30,000 equipment underspend on his hands. I got a pat on the back for ordering two totally over the top workstations, full complement of memory, huge hard drives, 21" monitors, top end graphics. We used workstations but we didn't need anything like that. The IT dept approved hardware configurations and their eyes popped out when they saw what we were ordering. Our manager just forced it through.
From the outside it looks totally nuts. Someone once explained why it had to be like that, but I didn't find the explanation convincing.
Plus with contract staff you don't have any holiday pay, sick pay, have to enrol them in pension schemes, pay for their training, do any payroll etc etc. Ive seen budget calculations where permanent staff worked out more expensive to employ than contractors on 20k a year more.
It can go the other way on the budgets too, I worked a place where the management got a bonus on how much under budget they managed to get each quarter, and they literally starved the company for much needed assets to bump their bonus up. At one point they had a entire floor on a DC with one ladder, and one craft terminal capable management device with expensive resource sitting round in queue waiting for their turn to use them.
It can go the other way on the budgets too, I worked a place where the management got a bonus on how much under budget they managed to get each quarter, and they literally starved the company for much needed assets to bump their bonus up. At one point they had a entire floor on a DC with one ladder, and one craft terminal capable management device with expensive resource sitting round in queue waiting for their turn to use them.
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,316
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
We do that. If they leave in a year, they have to pay back the whole amount. If they leave in the second year they pay back 50%.
Employees have to sign a contract before going on the course.
Personally, I don't agree with the policy - my view is that the instant someone gets back from a course they are more valuable to the business, so that's why you (the employer) should invest in them.
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,316
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
That's true. And, from the opposite end, I was talking to a mate last night who has an IT job at a council-funded college. He wants to go the contract route and I said to him that it's not all roses; you don't get sick pay, holiday pay, pension contribs or any kind of guarantee of employment. And you need to spot the contract coming to an end from far enough away to ensure you have the next job lined up.
And you tend to get the grunt work with little training, cos you're a contractor.
And you're 48 and working in IT - how many times do you want to go up against 25 year olds for the same gig?
Not my idea of fun...
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,469
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
I'm actually on a course next week, as soon as it's finished I shall demand a hefty pay rise and when they refuse I'll tell them skotl said I should have one
Ps any jobs going in your place, just in case........
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,316
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
Absolutely, Dale! But you may have to relocateI'm actually on a course next week, as soon as it's finished I shall demand a hefty pay rise and when they refuse I'll tell them skotl said I should have one
Ps any jobs going in your place, just in case........
(Edit: Technically, I said you shouldn't have to pay for the course, not that you deserve a raise!)
brightspark
Member
- Messages
- 41,425
- Location
- yarm stockton on tees
yes but your not going to pay for the course unless u can get your investment back and would take a year to do so my daughters been on a months training course . wind turbine engineer . if she leaves the firm in 1st year she pays 7 grand back and shese on zero contract 
the good news is she now got a job with another wind energy firm. permanent employment more free training .good wages and working in holland 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off all travel and expenses paid 
bad news is she has to pay the 7 grand back but when u think she has secured a good job and career out of it its worth it . i know lads that have paid thousands on training and got nothing 
the good news is she now got a job with another wind energy firm. permanent employment more free training .good wages and working in holland 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off all travel and expenses paid bad news is she has to pay the 7 grand back but when u think she has secured a good job and career out of it its worth it . i know lads that have paid thousands on training and got nothing
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,316
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
That is good news, and I'm delighted that she sees the training as an investment.yes but your not going to pay for the course unless u can get your investment back and would take a year to do so my daughters been on a months training course . wind turbine engineer . if she leaves the firm in 1st year she pays 7 grand back and shese on zero contract
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,316
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
I went there once (we tried, and failed, to sell them something).
I remember being seven stories underground (for those who don't know the building, it's victorian and has five floors above ground and seven below) and not being able to see more than 10ft for all the cigarette smoke - the movies got it right when they depicted smoke-filled newsrooms!
I heard that the costs of employment were about 3x the salary.
Of the two approaches, spend it or hit the road, or paying managers not to spend it, the first is probably the healthiest for the company. Our workstations weren't gathering dust even if they were OTT. It seems a shame common sense can't be applied but past a certain size I think companies are more or less obliged to become bureaucracies and so have fixed rules.
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,316
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
Not quite. The generally accepted norm (there may be exceptions in certain industries) is 1.5x salary.
Direct costs include Employers NI (10.4 to 13.8%), possibly IT costs (typically less than a grand a year), share of floorspace, rent, electrics, etc.
I hope I don't cause offence when I suggest that lower-paid employees tend to be housed in lower-rent accommodation, so that latter could be £10k a year for a high-earner in a major city, or it could be measured in the hundreds per year for a factory worker.
So salary + 50% is a decent measure.
Well, TBH, it was put to me as the cost of hiring a software/lab engineer in the 80s, so figure in air conditioned computer rooms, toys, training courses (lab engineers didn't go on many courses and weren't expected to have to but it was figured in) pensions and benefits, profit sharing and all that. It was probably a different set of variables for receptionists.
skotl
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 10,316
- Location
- Edinburgh, UK
We could probably argue about this all night long, and I did say that "there may be exceptions in certain industries", but my belief is that in skilled occupations 1.5 x is the de-facto calculation. I've had (I think) six managerial positions in the last 28 years and that's always the figure I've worked to.
Lab Techs have hi-tech kit, but they get paid more. Receptionists get paid less, and need less kit. I don't want to fall out over this, so this will be my last word, but my belief is that 1.5 x salary is the more accurate indicator of cost-to-employ.
FALL OUT! Over this, no way. It was told me by a few people at the time who insisted on it. I doubted it and it sort of depended on how things were accounted for. I couldn't see the point of the discussion. The company obviously thought it was making money by employing me or it would have been mad to do it and if I could have made more working somewhere else I'd have been off, so everyone was happy. Anyway, I said, really successful companies are the ones which put resources behind people. You can't both put resources behind people and not put resources behind people at the same time, unless you are conducting a ******** operation, which they weren't. They'd taken a decision to put resources behind people, they were doing that and were very profitable, so once again, what was this discussion about?
Kent
Member
- Messages
- 9,988
- Location
- Bowland, Lanacshire,UK
The other big issue is when it leaks out and all the also rans think they should get the same rate, that's why freelancers were invented
I don't think you can remotely put a price on employing someone in such a basic form of 1.5 x salary. Apart from anything every company I have worked had various rates through out the company.
There is no de-facto calculation unless you have no bean counters to make at least a reasonably educated formula.
