Interesting Labour priorities when setting bonus payments
Discussion
Just when I think Labour cannot get any more incompetent I come across a story like this.
Instead of admissions being decided on merit they should be by crude quotas.
And instead of bonuses being based on performance they will instead be based on how well the civil servants implement the latest PC madness.
Telegraph article below
Civil servants to lose part of their bonuses for failing to recruit enough women
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 02/11/2005)
Whitehall's top civil servants will lose part of their bonus payments if they fail to recruit enough women, the Government said yesterday. They will also have to hit their targets for ethnic minority and disabled recruitment if they want to avoid being penalised when bonuses are being distributed.
Sir Gus: ‘Whitehall to be model of best practice’
Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, announced the change as he published figures showing that the Civil Service has failed to meet some of its diversity targets set in 1998.
The Government wanted to have 35 per cent of posts in the Senior Civil Service - the top 4,000 jobs in Whitehall - filled by women by now. Instead the figure has gone up from 18 to 29 per cent.
Ministers also wanted 3 per cent of top civil servants to be disabled. The figure has gone up from 1.5 per cent to 2.3 per cent. But the Government has hit its target of getting the proportion of black and ethnic minority staff in the Senior Civil Service up from 1.5 per cent to 3.2 per cent.
Permanent secretaries, the most senior civil servants who run government departments, can in theory earn up to £264,000 a year, although last year the highest salary was £220,000.
Senior civil servants are also eligible for performance-related bonuses, which in the past have been worth up to 9 per cent for some individuals.
Sir Gus, who did not give details of how much civil servants would lose for failing to meet their targets, said he wanted Whitehall to be a model of best practice. "A truly representative workforce, including at the most senior levels, will enable policies and services to be developed in ways which will result in better outcomes for everyone in society. That is why this must happen," he said.
Instead of admissions being decided on merit they should be by crude quotas.
And instead of bonuses being based on performance they will instead be based on how well the civil servants implement the latest PC madness.
Telegraph article below
Civil servants to lose part of their bonuses for failing to recruit enough women
By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent
(Filed: 02/11/2005)
Whitehall's top civil servants will lose part of their bonus payments if they fail to recruit enough women, the Government said yesterday. They will also have to hit their targets for ethnic minority and disabled recruitment if they want to avoid being penalised when bonuses are being distributed.
Sir Gus: ‘Whitehall to be model of best practice’
Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, announced the change as he published figures showing that the Civil Service has failed to meet some of its diversity targets set in 1998.
The Government wanted to have 35 per cent of posts in the Senior Civil Service - the top 4,000 jobs in Whitehall - filled by women by now. Instead the figure has gone up from 18 to 29 per cent.
Ministers also wanted 3 per cent of top civil servants to be disabled. The figure has gone up from 1.5 per cent to 2.3 per cent. But the Government has hit its target of getting the proportion of black and ethnic minority staff in the Senior Civil Service up from 1.5 per cent to 3.2 per cent.
Permanent secretaries, the most senior civil servants who run government departments, can in theory earn up to £264,000 a year, although last year the highest salary was £220,000.
Senior civil servants are also eligible for performance-related bonuses, which in the past have been worth up to 9 per cent for some individuals.
Sir Gus, who did not give details of how much civil servants would lose for failing to meet their targets, said he wanted Whitehall to be a model of best practice. "A truly representative workforce, including at the most senior levels, will enable policies and services to be developed in ways which will result in better outcomes for everyone in society. That is why this must happen," he said.
There is a trade-off...
Too much nannying for minorities, and they become a target because they ARE treated differently. Ie positive discrimination simply because they are a certain colour and there are not many employed somewhere, so they get the job over other people just as capable. Imho, this is wrong, they have positive discrimination working for them!
On the other hand, not monitoring means that minorities CAN be discriminated against, which is just as bad as them getting positive discrimination.
Either way, what they are doing now is going too far imho. People who don't get jobs simply because there needs to be more black people or whatever leads them to be angry against the minorities, and generates racism or negative feeling.
I think Labour is actually making racism worse. I'm pretty p1ssed off with other minorities more now, since we are changing our culture to pamper for them, while they just do what the fook they like as they are a minority!
Christmas.... nooooo, december celebrations
Dave
Too much nannying for minorities, and they become a target because they ARE treated differently. Ie positive discrimination simply because they are a certain colour and there are not many employed somewhere, so they get the job over other people just as capable. Imho, this is wrong, they have positive discrimination working for them!
On the other hand, not monitoring means that minorities CAN be discriminated against, which is just as bad as them getting positive discrimination.
Either way, what they are doing now is going too far imho. People who don't get jobs simply because there needs to be more black people or whatever leads them to be angry against the minorities, and generates racism or negative feeling.
I think Labour is actually making racism worse. I'm pretty p1ssed off with other minorities more now, since we are changing our culture to pamper for them, while they just do what the fook they like as they are a minority!
Christmas.... nooooo, december celebrations
Dave
it's not directly addressing the point - but *why do* they get 'performance related bonuses'? the amount of time booked to individual 'tasks' etc is monitored everyone know's that nobody has a clue what's going on in a profit and loss sense - how if they are going to have them it's going to have to be monitored on nonsense like this because it couldn't be on efficiency cos they can't measure that...
Jaglover said:
I have checked the Times and the BBC websites and they both seem to have chosen not to report this story Silversun
The Telegraph is reporting what Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary said, if other news sources don’t choose to report it that does not change what he said.
Here you go:
www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1605820,00.html
And here:
www.globalnet.co.uk/news/news.asp?cat=news&aid=15079161
And here:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c6336f00-4a4
Oh, and here's the BBC's version:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4396090
And from the Times:
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1852091,00.html
I'm not having a go at anyone by doing this, and I don't think much of the current Government either, but I get a bit tired of seeing articles from the Telegraph constantly used to berate Labour when everyone knows that that paper is Tory, so it's hardly surprising that they take that view.
>> Edited by silversun on Wednesday 2nd November 13:41
You think this is bad in the UK - South Africa is 10 times worse ............ ( hope this is not what we are heading to in the UK )
basically if you are a degree educated , middle class , 40 something white male with loads of blue chip experience you are unemployable as there are "quotas" to be filled for blacks ( females especially ) - a target of 70 % of managers to be black IIRC - to INCREASE employment for Blacks
Somebody in Government forgot that competent managers and directors need experience and an education in addition to the "right" skin colour.
Result : Many businesses and NGO's in S.A are run badly , white professionals leave for the UK and USA , resulting in HIGHER unemployment for blacks. dohhhhhh......
Positive discriminationn is NEVER right - either way.
>> Edited by alfaman on Wednesday 2nd November 13:40
basically if you are a degree educated , middle class , 40 something white male with loads of blue chip experience you are unemployable as there are "quotas" to be filled for blacks ( females especially ) - a target of 70 % of managers to be black IIRC - to INCREASE employment for Blacks
Somebody in Government forgot that competent managers and directors need experience and an education in addition to the "right" skin colour.
Result : Many businesses and NGO's in S.A are run badly , white professionals leave for the UK and USA , resulting in HIGHER unemployment for blacks. dohhhhhh......
Positive discriminationn is NEVER right - either way.
>> Edited by alfaman on Wednesday 2nd November 13:40
If GBH against civil servants were legalised, I'm sure we could meet, and possibly exceed those targets.silversun said:
I'm not having a go at anyone by doing this, and I don't think much of the current Government either, but I get a bit tired of seeing articles from the Telegraph constantly used to berate Labour when everyone knows that that paper is Tory, so it's hardly surprising that they take that view.
>> Edited by silversun on Wednesday 2nd November 13:41
I try and find the articles on BBC for that very reason.
In this case I couldn't.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff