View previous topic | View next topic

Handy Hancock

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

barbados
1384014.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:47 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
barbados wrote:
I refer you back to post 1383989
Particularly the
Quote:
At least we’ve discovered who “those” are now
bit


All you are demonstrating is just how far above your head the whole discussion is.

PDR

The case of beer comment couldn’t be more of a hyperbole if it been made on national hyperbole day.
Face it you were trying to start an argument, and Alexander Howard isn’t playing your game.

 
PDR
1384018.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:11 am Reply with quote

Willie wrote:

£70 - £95 per hour is still overpaying as far as I am concerned, especially when the actual main work is being done by people on the same rate as nurses (the pay scale is back to front, nurses should be the ones on the higher rate than the consultants).


I stress - this is not what individuals are paid. This is the fully-burdened cost of the work. In a typical engineering organisation someone costed at £80/hr would be on a salary of around £30-£33k. The difference is are artefact of the accounting simplification that amortises all the organisation and project costs into an hourly man-hour rate.

On the management consultants - I couldn't agree more. My own organisation had a habit of hiring them to support bid work, and I've only ever met two (out of several hundred over the last 30-ish years) who actually delivered any value into the project. The remainder were mostly just drawing an income from cronyism or were just plain useless. There is a lot of truth in the old aphorism that defines a consultant as someone who charges vast amounts of money to tell you what you already knew (those who can, do - those who can't become consultants!).

In 2013 we stopped using consultants across the whole business. This was partly as a result of some undertakings we gave HMG in the resolution of the proven false (much to the chagrin of CAAT) bribery allegations but mainly because a new divisional MD wrote a paper on how much we had spent on consultants since 1995 and how negligible the return was (IIRC the RoI was -85%). The non-execs on the board went ape, and the next day all our consultant contracts were cancelled.

PDR

 
Willie
1384020.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:20 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
On the management consultants - I couldn't agree more. My own organisation had a habit of hiring them to support bid work, and I've only ever met two (out of several hundred over the last 30-ish years) who actually delivered any value into the project. The remainder were mostly just drawing an income from cronyism or were just plain useless. There is a lot of truth in the old aphorism that defines a consultant as someone who charges vast amounts of money to tell you what you already knew (those who can, do - those who can't become consultants!).


One thing I will say, it is quite satisfying to say no to these consultants as a lowly junior developer and they have come up with plans that have no real requirements, would break systems that are already in place and would basically cause a massive headache.

It really is an advantage of keeping the system as much in house as you can.

 
PDR
1384022.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:38 am Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
We have contractors, but they are paid on a scale far more comparible to the full time staff.


In this context you're probably referring to "subcontractors" rather than contractors. There is a big difference, although the only place I've ever seen it written down was in CAA standards (relating Part21 subpart G organisations).

If you Contract an organisation to do a piece of work that organisation works to its own procedures and equipment under its own governance and its own accreditations. The organisation that does this has significant overhead costs in maintaining the equipment/processes/accreditations/governance etc.

If you SUBcontract then you are hiring a person to do a task using YOUR procedures and equipment under YOUR governance and YOUR accreditations. It is up to you to establish that the person is SQEP, and everything he/she does must be overseen and certified by you. This is the well known "subbie" role which has a far lower overhead as there are no physical or intellectual corporate assets to be sustained (the overheads essentially being the Class4 NI, mandatory paid leave and sick leave, travel & subsistance etc). Subcontractors do have right of substitution (which contractors don't) but are constantly under surveillance by HMRC to ensure that they are not really employees (IR35 refers, as you know).

Typical subbie rates for software engineering run from about £25 - £42/hr [in my organisation] with a few who have very specific and rare skills getting to £70/hr, although we haven't paid those rates for years. These days we only employ subbies where there is a very specific short-term need. We need main-board director sign-off for anything beyond 6 months and we have to explain why our capability strategy failed to provide the required resource. The only ones I can remember in recent years have been where we've had UOR demands from the MoD, in which case we'll employ a couple of subbies to stand in on the long-term projects while the internal experts tackle the UOR.

PDR

 
PDR
1384023.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:45 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
PDR wrote:
barbados wrote:
I refer you back to post 1383989
Particularly the
Quote:
At least we’ve discovered who “those” are now
bit


All you are demonstrating is just how far above your head the whole discussion is.

PDR

The case of beer comment couldn’t be more of a hyperbole if it been made on national hyperbole day.


The claim is that the project was a simple one. That in untrue. Expressing an untruth in hyperbolic terms doesn't make it true, therefore there is no "it was a hyperbole" excuse.

Quote:

Face it you were trying to start an argument, and Alexander Howard isn’t playing your game.


I'm not trying to start anything. I was just responding to a particularly asinine claim from a serial provider of asinine claims partly to see if he could provide any substance. It's like when you are asked for sources for your claims - no one really expects any meaningful response and the lack of one provides the expected answer.

PDR

 
suze
1384024.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:45 am Reply with quote

Coming back, if we may, to Mr Hancock. He has now resigned, dumped his wife, and moved in with his fancy piece.

On Friday the Prime Minister insisted that there was nothing to see here, that Mr Hancock would not resign and would not be fired, and that while his breach of social distancing rules was sub-optimal it was no big deal.

What changed between then and Saturday evening? Was the PM genuinely surprised to get the letter of resignation, or did he order it? Now that Mr Hancock has finally gone, please can Williamson be next?

 
barbados
1384025.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:52 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

What changed between then and Saturday evening? Was the PM genuinely surprised to get the letter of resignation, or did he order it?

I’d guess “then” Mrs Hancock + 3 were not in receipt of the online abuse?
I’d also guess no, the PM wasn’t surprised.

 
tetsabb
1384030.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:07 am Reply with quote

It did remind me of a football club chairman (yes, they are mostly men) who expresses full confidence in the manager after a string of 4-0 defeats.

 
Willie
1384033.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:12 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Coming back, if we may, to Mr Hancock. He has now resigned, dumped his wife, and moved in with his fancy piece.

On Friday the Prime Minister insisted that there was nothing to see here, that Mr Hancock would not resign and would not be fired, and that while his breach of social distancing rules was sub-optimal it was no big deal.

What changed between then and Saturday evening? Was the PM genuinely surprised to get the letter of resignation, or did he order it? Now that Mr Hancock has finally gone, please can Williamson be next?


Maybe the court case regarding giving contacts to friends of him and Cummings, that Gove finally admitted he had lost on Friday, and ended up having to pay 75% of the Good Law Projects costs meant they needed a sacrificial lamb to take attention away from a man who always seems to profits from bad press of other Tory politicians?

 
crissdee
1384038.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:24 am Reply with quote

On a lighter note, I see that both the Daily Mirror and the Sun have gone with "Matt Finished" as a headline.

Made me smile anyway...

 
tetsabb
1384039.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:24 am Reply with quote

Just seen a tweet asking if anyone is prepared to have an affair with Gavin Williamsom so we get rid of him, too.
suze?
😉

 
PDR
1384040.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:42 am Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
On a lighter note, I see that both the Daily Mirror and the Sun have gone with "Matt Finished" as a headline.


It certainly took the gloss off his time in office

PDR

 
barbados
1384042.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:01 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
barbados wrote:
PDR wrote:
barbados wrote:
I refer you back to post 1383989
Particularly the
Quote:
At least we’ve discovered who “those” are now
bit


All you are demonstrating is just how far above your head the whole discussion is.

PDR

The case of beer comment couldn’t be more of a hyperbole if it been made on national hyperbole day.


The claim is that the project was a simple one. That in untrue. Expressing an untruth in hyperbolic terms doesn't make it true, therefore there is no "it was a hyperbole" excuse.

The claim was that it "could have been done by a spotty computer geek for a crate of beers."
There was no reference to the complexity, only the cost
PDR wrote:

Quote:

Face it you were trying to start an argument, and Alexander Howard isn’t playing your game.

PDR wrote:

I'm not trying to start anything. I was just responding to a particularly asinine claim from a serial provider of asinine claims partly to see if he could provide any substance. It's like when you are asked for sources for your claims - no one really expects any meaningful response and the lack of one provides the expected answer.

PDR

Your comment
Quote:
Or is this just you jerking off again?
would suggest differently

 
Leith
1384047.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:09 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
If you Contract an organisation to do a piece of work that organisation works to its own procedures and equipment under its own governance and its own accreditations. The organisation that does this has significant overhead costs in maintaining the equipment/processes/accreditations/governance etc.

If you SUBcontract then you are hiring a person to do a task using YOUR procedures and equipment under YOUR governance and YOUR accreditations.

Curious - the terminology has always been the other way round where I've worked (civil transport and space industry), at least as far as colloquial use in the office is concerned. "Subcontractors" are external companies working off-site to their own processes, while "contractors" are self-employed or agency staff who come to work on-site with our teams on temporary contracts.

 
barbados
1384048.  Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:15 pm Reply with quote

Leith wrote:

Curious - the terminology has always been the other way round where I've worked (civil transport and space industry), at least as far as colloquial use in the office is concerned. "Subcontractors" are external companies working off-site to their own processes, while "contractors" are self-employed or agency staff who come to work on-site with our teams on temporary contracts.

That would also be the case in the NHS

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group