shamus Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I am constructing a letter to Hazel and will issue a copy of it to the Examiner and Manx Radio. Thanks for being brave and walking the coals to support me grumble. I can assure people that my letter will not be posted on this message forum for reasons we all know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Remind me to get a job with the MEA next time. Everyone I've ever worked for has ridiculously insisted I pay for what I eat and drink, and how I get there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would have thought that was quite simple... There's been loads of ad's in the papers over the last couple of months for jobs with the MEA, why not apply for one of them!! Maybe they're looking for a replacement for that guy who spilt the oil in Peel power station (front page news last week) As to the 'free party' well why not...? I saw some of those guys out side where i live, in the rain that was going sideways! and the wind, trying to put our power back on. It's something we all take for granted these days, we flick a switch and the light comes on, with out even thinking the about effort that must go into getting that power stuff to our houses in the first place, and that's 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So i voted yes, reward the people at the MEA for what they do, in all sorts of weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barby Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Remind me to get a job with the MEA next time. Everyone I've ever worked for has ridiculously insisted I pay for what I eat and drink, and how I get there. What were all other costs? Furs? Diamonds? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've just noticed that post. It just sounds envious with an I don't get that so nobody else should attitude! Some workers are just a bit more use than some and MEA workers and highway workers are a bit more useful than most. Rather than moan about the MEA why not shame those companies who make their employees pay for their own Christmas Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Barby - Every Government Department (none of which I work for btw). Quite right too, seeing as it would be taxpayer's cash being spent. Shamus - I don't think I quite put across exactly what I meant and it came out a bit agressive. What I meant was that drafting a letter to us in the forums is all well and good but if you weren't going to actually send it then it would be a pointless rant. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointless rants, but it's obviously something you care deeply about so well done for sending the letter to Hazel etc. And I totally agree it's a bit of a cheek when the MHKs get god knows what for free and more besides. However I'm still of the opinion that £80 plus per head is a bit on the steep side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Barby - Every Government Department (none of which I work for btw). Quite right too, seeing as it would be taxpayer's cash being spent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK, i'm not 100% sure on what you're saying here as it doesn't quite make sense. But, if i understand you right, you're saying that taxpayers cash is being spent on the party? If so, then you're wrong. Money you pay for your electricity bill might have been spent on it, but not the tax payers dosh. Nothing the MEA does uses tax payers money, well not directly anyway. I dare say that the large amount of dept they have came from the tax payer, but no matter what you think about that, it was a loan/grant/over draft, call it what you will, just like any other company might take out. But, if the MEA had been a government department, then they would have access to the government pot directly, would they not?? Please feel free to correct as i'm not 100% sure of how they work it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 But, if the MEA had been a government department, then they would have access to the government pot directly, would they not?? The MEA is a statutory body of the Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 But, if the MEA had been a government department, then they would have access to the government pot directly, would they not?? The MEA is a statutory body of the Government. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whilst I appreciate your reply, some of the people on here may not know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 The moderator is quite correct though. Government Departments have sub bodies as such and the Mea and the Water Board come under that catagory. Basically it means that they operate to a certain extent independantly but they are still under Government control. In the case of the MEA they are in law a statutary board of Tynwald under the control of the Department of trade and Industry. Ultimately Alex Downie MHK, Minister of the DTI is responsible for MEA matters, not the Treasury Minister. But he seems more occupied in films of late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Ultimately Alex Downie MHK, Minister of the DTI is responsible for MEA matters, not the Treasury Minister. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well that explains EVERYTHING! Now it’s clear why the party took place! He was trying to demonstrate that despite every indication he IS capable of organising a pi*s up in a brewery, albeit if only only by proxy, as part of his bid for a place on the LC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 On all Government Contracts only contractors who are on the DTI list of approved contractors can be employed. At the Power Station they did not stick the the rules, they employed who ever they wanted to. Two years ago Tynwald tried to get its hands on the GPO pension fund without success, they are to try again to get the GPO Pension Fund, which is £27million, UK Union officials are to fight the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Fatty - small point but you did invite me to correct you! Barby asked us to 'name and shame' places that do not provide parties for their employees. I said - very clumsily - that staff of Government Departments (not statutory boards) have to pay for their own parties. I don't think it's particularly shameful because Government departments are run by taxpayer's cash. That's all, hope it's a bit clearer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I find all this "So what? I'm sure you spend more than us" tit for tat simply goes round and round in ever decreasing circles. People are complaining about their energy bills going up so their representative is asking questions about how their money is being spent which sounds fair enough to me. I would have to say that the direction it is heading is not a line of questioning I would take as there don't seem to be too many significant savings at the end of it. About £170 per employee per year was spent on two company bashes. To put it in perspective an "employee" head costs about $150,000 per annum when all the bits and pieces are put together. I'm not saying that's what it costs MEA as the headcount is reported but not all the associated costs. But that's the ballpark figure we use. The MEA finances are interesting though. If you look at the financial reports there appears to be something strange going on with the loan. Of course, the published reports want to paint the most rosy picture possible and are for mass consumption so they are consequently very light on detail but even so. All in £millions. 2001 2002 2003 Income 29.1 27.4 27.7 Surplus 1.8 6.6 1.7 Borrowings Outstanding 12.6 188.1 186.9 Interest 1.3 1.2 0.9 If I'm reading it right a rate of about half a percent with 180 years to pay. If their debts are now around 300 million then they more than exceed 10 years worth of the total MEA income. With energy prices so volatile I'm sure the bank only went for it because if The Master Plan goes belly up they just get their hands on YOUR money. A zero risk Win / Win. Where is the 2003-2004 report? Edited to try and figure out BB Code tabs - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Fatty - small point but you did invite me to correct you! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes i did, and now we all know what is going on, thank you That's all, hope it's a bit clearer! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, just a bit... If I'm reading it right a rate of about half a percent with 180 years to pay. If their debts are now around 300 million then they more than exceed 10 years worth of the total MEA income. With energy prices so volatile I'm sure the bank only went for it because if The Master Plan goes belly up they just get their hands on YOUR money. A zero risk Win / Win. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Think i'll join the same bank, i could do with a new loan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumble Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 To put it in perspective an "employee" head costs about $150,000 per annum when all the bits and pieces are put together. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In which parallel universe is that? And can someone teleport me there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 In which parallel universe is that? And can someone teleport me there? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is the number we currently use use to re-charge headcount. A few years ago it was around the $120,000 mark. As we re-charge in dollars and pay in mostly euros our labour costs have risen at the same rate as the dollar has fallen. Equally as we buy kit in dollars and sell it in euros we have also seen an equivalent increase in sales profitability. One of the advantages of being a multi-national is that the exchange rate inbalances often cancel one another out. A "fully loaded employee" will have items like building infrastructure (heating, lighting, sanitary, canteen, security, rates, parking etc etc), insurances, healthcare, company car, relocation, pension and so on built in to make up the figure. It's not only about salary - unfortunately. The point I am trying to make, probably very badly, is that compared to the grand scheme of things paying out £170 per employee per annum when there is about 280 of them is damn all compared to retaining their loyalty and trying to pay back over 11 times your annual turnover in debt. Frankly it looks untenable. I mean, the figure declared as "Interest" in the 2002 figures exactly matches the capital repayment for that year. To me that is a scary coincidence. Especially as a more likely 5% interest rate on £188 million would need a £9.5 million annual interest payment to maintain it of which there is no mention in their figures. Who signed the books? Jamie Oliver? - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.