Tbh, the pay rise is reasonable. But the rhetoric from government is never the same. It’s just what they want it to be.
There’s no money for public services. Except this one time. And this other time. Oh and for our mates
From 90,000 to 162,000 is most certainly not reasonable. That’s an 80% raise. Who else gets a 80% raise?
OK sure it’s a big raise. But from what I gather they are doing (could be completely misunderstanding the job or the article hasn’t clearly defined well enough for me) but I’d think that was inline with other sectors with that kind of responsibility. Maybe I’m completely deluded 🤷
When you say “other sectors” you probably mean major corporations. Yes in major corporations CEOs and such get paid obscene amounts of money for failing constantly and then being fired with golden handshakes. That’s not something we want to do with our public sector.
These people are not CEOs, they are not running anything. They are just sitting on a board that meets at most once a quarter for a couple of hours. Nobody should be getting paid 90K for ten hours of work a year.
Sorry, you’re completely right. I went back and reread the article and I had misunderstood. This is a bit much and I agree with your take.
Thanks for the correction
This!
The payouts for directors in the private sector is already BS, why would we want to match it with public sector.
Exactly. But they know they will all be sitting on boards when they stop getting elected so that’s why they are doing this.
One thing about the claim that its needed to attract talent is that from what I can see as an outsider looking in, getting onto boards is all about networking and who you know. The “skills” you bring are usually post-factum justifications for their appointment. And alot of the time boil down to, well this person’s been on a lot of boards before, so they must be good.
Also notice, people tend to fail upwards into board positions? They’re former (often failed) CEOs etc.
exactly. It’s all reacharounds and corruption.