Ministry of Defence pays 80 officials more than £100,000
Thread Starter
Ministry of Defence pays 80 officials more than £100,000
Ministry of Defence pays 80 officials more than £100,000 - Telegraph
..and with names:
Public sector chiefs' pay revealed: the 800 mandarins and quangocrats who earn over £100,000 - Telegraph
A little coy with names of £100,000-plus officials in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Joint Forces Command - there must be a good reason - I wonder why?
..and with names:
Public sector chiefs' pay revealed: the 800 mandarins and quangocrats who earn over £100,000 - Telegraph
A little coy with names of £100,000-plus officials in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Joint Forces Command - there must be a good reason - I wonder why?
This article refers to civil servants.
When you consider that a UK military level 3 1* earns £100,157 (not allowing for any specialist pay) then I expect there are more than 80 military officers in the MOD earning over £100,000.
The article in the first link refers to someone in MOD earning £800,000. That certainly sounds excessive. As for £100,000, when you look at the list of people in the outside world earning £100,000+ it includes, Charity heads, senior headmasters, University chancellors, Health board officials, Local Council Officers, Union leaders, and the list in general private industry is endless.......
The figure of £100,000 is a nice round number, and it might look an excessive salary, and I'm sure we would all like to earn it, but the outside world is quite happy to pay lots of people that sort of salary if their experience, responsibility, performance, etc, warrant it....
If you pay peanuts...!!
When you consider that a UK military level 3 1* earns £100,157 (not allowing for any specialist pay) then I expect there are more than 80 military officers in the MOD earning over £100,000.
The article in the first link refers to someone in MOD earning £800,000. That certainly sounds excessive. As for £100,000, when you look at the list of people in the outside world earning £100,000+ it includes, Charity heads, senior headmasters, University chancellors, Health board officials, Local Council Officers, Union leaders, and the list in general private industry is endless.......
The figure of £100,000 is a nice round number, and it might look an excessive salary, and I'm sure we would all like to earn it, but the outside world is quite happy to pay lots of people that sort of salary if their experience, responsibility, performance, etc, warrant it....
If you pay peanuts...!!
To put things into further perspective, the BBC has only around 23,000 staff compared to the MOD's 250,000 full time civilian and uniformed employees plus reserves.
The BBC has an annual budget of only £5bn compared to the MOD's £42bn.
Even three years ago, the BBC had 382 staff earning over £100k compared to the MOD's current 80:
The BBC has an annual budget of only £5bn compared to the MOD's £42bn.
Even three years ago, the BBC had 382 staff earning over £100k compared to the MOD's current 80:
Daily Telegraph 13 Feb 2010: BBC has 382 staff earning more than £100,000
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The High Seas
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The list is an odd combination of officials and serving senior officers. Furthermore, the headline salary that is being used to highlight this "national scandal" is only one element of what will be a variety of packages too.
Overall, I don't see what the issue is. I'm now gainfully employed in the private sector and, whilst it's not quite the land of milk and honey everyone imagines, it is clear that you need to pay the going market rate to attract and retain the right individuals. And before the obvious questioning of 'the right individuals', scepticism on that point could be applied throughout the entire rank or management structure of any organisation. Sometimes it's the corporate procedures, politics and other factors which blight a person's tenure in office - not necessarily their competence.
AW
Overall, I don't see what the issue is. I'm now gainfully employed in the private sector and, whilst it's not quite the land of milk and honey everyone imagines, it is clear that you need to pay the going market rate to attract and retain the right individuals. And before the obvious questioning of 'the right individuals', scepticism on that point could be applied throughout the entire rank or management structure of any organisation. Sometimes it's the corporate procedures, politics and other factors which blight a person's tenure in office - not necessarily their competence.
AW
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha,
I well understand the points you make, and the need to attract high calibre individuals. But I'm really perplexed by the sheer numbers of people in public organisations earning such high salaries, especially with the apparent inadequacy of departments such as the NHS. I agree that individual competence is not necessarily linked to overall corporate performance but surely the managerial pyramids, and their cost, seem somewhat disproportionate.
I also follow the points made by Biggus concerning the wider civil service and private sectors. Except that I read of many cases where peanuts would have been far more appropriate!
Isn't it all quite simply a case of the increasing greed within our modern society? And a blindingly obvious example of the widening gap between those in more fortunate positions than others (I purposely avoid the use of 'have/have not'). Have not salary expectations become somewhat exaggerated (if not grossly)?
Little wonder that MP's want more. Let alone a Prime or Cabinet Minister - albeit these days, many of those are probably little phased by their low remuneration.
I well understand the points you make, and the need to attract high calibre individuals. But I'm really perplexed by the sheer numbers of people in public organisations earning such high salaries, especially with the apparent inadequacy of departments such as the NHS. I agree that individual competence is not necessarily linked to overall corporate performance but surely the managerial pyramids, and their cost, seem somewhat disproportionate.
I also follow the points made by Biggus concerning the wider civil service and private sectors. Except that I read of many cases where peanuts would have been far more appropriate!
Isn't it all quite simply a case of the increasing greed within our modern society? And a blindingly obvious example of the widening gap between those in more fortunate positions than others (I purposely avoid the use of 'have/have not'). Have not salary expectations become somewhat exaggerated (if not grossly)?
Little wonder that MP's want more. Let alone a Prime or Cabinet Minister - albeit these days, many of those are probably little phased by their low remuneration.
cuefaye,
You're perplexed by the 'sheer numbers of people in public organisations earning such high salaries'? According to the civil service website, there are 453,000 CS in the country. So if 80 earn more than £100k (ignoring the fact that some of those in the list are mil personnel), that represents fewer than 0.02% of the total.
That seems to me not only very low for any national organisation but also to compare very favourably with the BBC (using Fodplod's figures) of 1.7%!
You're perplexed by the 'sheer numbers of people in public organisations earning such high salaries'? According to the civil service website, there are 453,000 CS in the country. So if 80 earn more than £100k (ignoring the fact that some of those in the list are mil personnel), that represents fewer than 0.02% of the total.
That seems to me not only very low for any national organisation but also to compare very favourably with the BBC (using Fodplod's figures) of 1.7%!
The outside world is very definitely not happy to pay salaries of over £100,000 to these people, most of whom do not deserve it whether they're private sector or public sector.
Rather than increasing salaries to compare to those elsewhere, which is the excuse used so often,it would make more sense to reduce the latter. If those affected don't like it - tough.
Pay excessive salaries and you get greedy monkeys.
Rather than increasing salaries to compare to those elsewhere, which is the excuse used so often,it would make more sense to reduce the latter. If those affected don't like it - tough.
Pay excessive salaries and you get greedy monkeys.
Why not.....the MOD needs the very best staff possible to conduct their business.....and considering all of their successes....they sure seem to be getting it right....aren't they?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put things into further perspective, the BBC has only around 23,000 staff compared to the MOD's 250,000 full time civilian and uniformed employees plus reserves.
The BBC has an annual budget of only £5bn compared to the MOD's £42bn.
Even three years ago, the BBC had 382 staff earning over £100k compared to the MOD's current 80:
Daily Telegraph 13 Feb 2010: BBC has 382 staff earning more than £100,000
The BBC has an annual budget of only £5bn compared to the MOD's £42bn.
Even three years ago, the BBC had 382 staff earning over £100k compared to the MOD's current 80:
Daily Telegraph 13 Feb 2010: BBC has 382 staff earning more than £100,000
It is probably the biggest fat cat gravy train in Britain.
They don't have to make a profit, like private media companies, just spend our license fees.
Their HR girl, Lucy Adams, is on £332,900, for instance.
cuefaye,
Oops!
I took that from the OP, but of course, that refers to 80 in the MOD, not the CS!
Let's try again. A bit of googling indicates the number of CS in the MOD as around 50,000 - so 80 is still less than 0.2%. Ten times higher than my first assessment, but still quite low.
(Note to self - must try harder!)
Oops!
I took that from the OP, but of course, that refers to 80 in the MOD, not the CS!
Let's try again. A bit of googling indicates the number of CS in the MOD as around 50,000 - so 80 is still less than 0.2%. Ten times higher than my first assessment, but still quite low.
(Note to self - must try harder!)
