The regulars amongst you will know that I am an FCA and auditor, with a few years' experience of working in multi nationals around the world.
One of the many things that I have learned, aside from always going to the loo before a meeting and drying my hands afterwards, is that bonuses should be used to reward good results and exceptional performance.
Bonuses should not be used to reward failure.
Therefore I have to ask the question, why the hell have the staff at the Child Support Agency Staff (CSA) been paid over £25M in bonuses; given that the CSA is a total load of old bollocks!
Even Bliary Poppins herself has said that the organ is not "fit for purpose".
In 2002-03 £11M was paid in the form of bonuses, and £4M was paid last year (when John Hutton the Work and Pensions Secretary announced that the CSA was to be scrapped).
The CSA has a backlog of nearly 240,000 cases, and more than £3.5 billion of uncollected debts on its books.
Around one in five calculations or assessments are inaccurate, and it currently takes around 36 weeks to deal with new applications.
CSA staff admitted entering inaccurate information about families into the agency's computer system, and redirecting calls to answer phones.
Well done lads!
Needless to say Nanny's Department for Work and Pensions think the bonuses are great.
Quote:
"The bonus scheme, agreed by the unions, rewards the hard work of individuals.
CSA staff are, of course, eligible to be recognised in this way.
The CSA's well documented problems stem from the design of the system
introduced in 1993, but staff should not be punished for them."
Sorry, but have I totally misunderstood my last 20 years in business, aren't salaries meant to reward people for their work?
Money well spent!
There you go folks, in Nanny's world lousy work gets rewarded, especially when it's you and I that are paying for it!
It's simple. Their bonuses are paid on how they fill out their H&S forms and how many applications they turn over. Nothing to do with quality. Therefore they are like everyone else. they go for the targets that get them extra pennies. Doing a good job to the people is not an item on this target list so it's way down on their priorities. Can you blame them, I do the same, GPs do the same, wouldn't you when making a third party who doesn't even pay your wages happy is not a criteria.
ReplyDeleteken said:
ReplyDelete"Sorry, but have I totally misunderstood my last 20 years in business, aren't salaries meant to reward people for their work?"
It depends.
"What get measured gets done"
and people will measure what is measurable rather than what is important and so on cannot separate one from the other. The Americans discovered this in the Vietnam war when spending millions of dollars and not a few lives destroying 'buildings', the counting of which was the only non-contact means they had (using aerial photos) of measuring their effectiveness. After a few years they realised that the 'success' was not being reflected in real results and sought alternatives, but too late in the game. Nobody considered that the type of 'building' they were mostly destroying was hardly likely to cause significant disruption to the war effort of the other side.
Sadly the idea had already escaped into the wild in feral form and become viral in bureaucratic thinking. (Oxymoron anyone?)
It has now passed into computer model crystal ball gazing as well, transmuting from human to cyber form.
The uncontrolled risk factor resulting is, in my estimation, far far greater than anything related to the official global health scares, for example bird flu, currently being promoted.
It seems that Nannies worldwide prosper when alleged measurements are accepted as 'reasonable'. The acceptance leads to 'estimates' which are nearly always wrong. The Olympic Development springs most readily to mind.
But errors merely result in the call for more "measurement" to make things "more accurate".
And things like the NHS budget vs treatment fiasco.
If the CSA (and other Nanny corportations) were run on private lines I would guess that firstly the bonuses, if they existed at all, would be less and secondly, irrespective of whether personal targets were achieved, if there was no money in the bank the payments would not be made. More likely jobs would be lost with the most successful (read most expensive) resources at the head of the list.
But not in Nanny's Wonderful World of measurements of course.
So, sky_dog, if I understand you correctly you are slightly less than enamoured of the current system?
ReplyDeleteThe get-out clause in all this bullshit is the phrase 'exceptional performance'; it doen't say 'exceptionally GOOD performance',
ReplyDeleteGod knows, the performance of these NuLab bastards can ONLY be described as 'exceptional'.
I have been a great sinner over the years, and so had to spend several years' penance in a Social Security office. against Trade Union wishes,(God knows why- brotherhood I expect) Performance bonuses were introduced; there were strict guidelines (apparently) but basically the end result was that mates rewarded each other; there were very few promotion prospects as we were being "stream-lined" and pay rises were abyssmal; I kind of agree with the idea - why should an individual be punished just because s/he happens to be a Civil Servant? What about all the "fatcat" bonuses in failing companies? Pick on someone who can answer back!
ReplyDelete>Pick on someone who can answer back!
ReplyDeleteAs this is a public forum, the employees are quite free to answer back. Unless they are illiterate or don't know how to use computers of course...... oh, sorry, I see what you mean!
Janejill said...
ReplyDelete" What about all the "fatcat" bonuses in failing companies? Pick on someone who can answer back! "
Equally unacceptable in my view, perhaps moreso because the "fatcat" part of it that you focus on applies only to the management. In the end they answer to the shareholders via a board of directors or something similar. When it gets really tough for them they take one of Nanny's jobs running part of Nanny's nursery. Something like the CSA for example.
But that is a private matter and does not usually involve public money (taxation, payments for Health Care via National Insurane and so on) directly.
I see the South African import former 'Firebrand' Minister is targeting the same people. Presumably he will be giving 60% or his pay increases and well protected pension fund to "re-generation" projects in the East end of London in order to support his idea?
Hang on though I thoght the Olympics were supposed to be regenerating teh East End of London.
And was it not the Lottery that was going to be the cash collection mechanism of choice to extract 'charity' money from the public? Now to be used (was it never thus?) to support London's crazed yearning (allegedly) for international attention?
In the context of Ken's observation and despite the potential sympathy I could have for individuals working with in the system, bonuses simply do not make sense. Any other business run that way would either be failing badly and be unable to pay or have support from other sources for some reason, possibly illegal.
Enron comes to mind, the result punishing both the "fatcats" and the employees in most cases.