Topic ID 930
Try a job with Herts County Council... Assistant Director, Human Resources Permanent , Full-Time Location: Hertford Salary: Up to £92,000 Start Date: Flexible Closing Date: 16/9/05 http://www.manpower.co.uk/CandidateApps/hcc/jobboard/(sckj2evir0wtt1u1rap2yq55)/frameset.aspx And that's only the Assistant Director!!! So that's where our Council Tax goes!
Reply ID 9987
Unfortunately local government has to compete with the private sector. Some local governmenal offices employ more staff than FTSE 100 listed companies and in these you would expect to see some high salaries for this type of position. I don't think local governement pay such salaries to perpetuate high income at directorate level and they do need to ensure that they are attractive to the right employees. After all, they are accountable to you and I. Personally I would rather they paid the right salary in order to ensure the best public servants were employed to serve us. P.S. I've just re-read that and it sounds like a load of corporate b******s.
Reply ID 9988
It does sound,I'm afraid to say, like it was written by someone defending their ludicrous salary at the tax payers expense.
Reply ID 9991
Typical of Human Remains (HR) in general, what value do these people give us the council tax payers.....absolutely nothing,£92k could be spent on far better things, than an overpaid suit.
Reply ID 9992
They could, of course, had a typo accident and it should read £29,000 ???? Possibility maybe.. As I need a job.. £92K sounds right up my street.. I am off to apply.. .well they can only say no can't they!!!!
Reply ID 9993
I am a 'head hunter' for senior appointments at Fortune top 250 companies and £92K for an assistant HR person is not competitive it is over the odds.
Reply ID 9999
The company doing the recruiting, Tribal, have confirmed that up to £92 K is not a typo but the correct salary for this high level post. Most senior public sector workers have their salaries in the published accounts somewhere so this is obviously not secret information, but it does seem a very generous package, particularly when you look at the job details. As Steve points out, this is not an Executive Director post but merely an Assistant Director. One can therefore conclude that there are a lot of very high earners up there on Pegs Lane. Let’s hope this has a positive effect on the county town and some of that wealth trickles down to our local businesses. And as Ewoowar points out, by paying top dollar we can expect to recruit the best possible people to run our county council. [:D][;)]
Reply ID 10001
It is all about attracting and recruiting the best people, of course, and HCC is recognised as one of the very best councils in the country, so the recruitment policy must be working. In reality, the pay band is £68k to £92k and there is no way they will be paying £92k. Consider the number of people that local government are responsible for employing and two HR assistants to a Director of People and Property is not that much to ask. Just as a flavour, for anyone who's never worked in HR, imangine trying to explain to a unionised workforce that their jobs are changing and that if they are not prepared to re-train, move job location or re-apply, they will be out of a job. And if they are still in a job next month, the pension scheme they were in will no longer pay out what they thought it would. And if you don't like it, have a word with Tony Blair.
Reply ID 10003
Well i've never worked in HR but the way you put it above seems pretty clear for the workers. An open question from an old cynic...Did the salaries for this type of position balloon when they changed their name from the personnel dept to Human Resources (an ugly americanism in my view).
Reply ID 10004
I agree with Paul. £92k was always going to be the highest point in a range. People are always quick to look at salaries. And why do some people immediately assume that there is a direct correlation between the more you earn and the less work you do?
Reply ID 10012
A similar post in the NHS - top whack is about half that amount... I don't work in HR but think I need to move to local government... pay seems much more lucrative. it's good to know that's where my taxes are going.
Reply ID 10074
I know exactly where you're all coming from but I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining if somebody decided to give YOU a nice big pay increase? Maybe the people that make it to these jobs think they've put in their taxes too so why shouldn't they get a decent salary?! I know I workmy backside off to get my increase every year and if I was to go to a new role I would want it to be worth my while [;)]
Reply ID 10075
quote:FYI, an HR director in the NHS at the moment will be earning upwards of £60k. The job advertised here is not for an asistant to an HR Director but an Assistant Director, responsible for HR, reporting to a Director of People and Property. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's pretty much equivalent to an NHS director but with less chance of catching MRSA. Anyway, still nice work if you can get.
Originally posted by Bengeobabe
A similar post in the NHS - top whack is about half that amount... I don't work in HR but think I need to move to local government... pay seems much more lucrative. it's good to know that's where my taxes are going.
Reply ID 10088
Looks like someone had a change of heart, it states competitive salary now for the HR position!
Reply ID 28570
Is this job still around?
Reply ID 28593
HR is currently the most strategic of all directorships for a number of reasons. In the private sector HR is currently second only in importantance in company structure to the CEO. The top 2% of companies have recognised it, the other 98% struggle on with the prejudiced views of years, i.e. "What do they make?" and "It's a career for part time housewives, isn't it?". Well, yes it is if you pay below the position's value. A real example is:- Small company. Turnover £32m, Profit 6m, HR budget £16m. Other five directors budget combined £12m. HR package set below that of the finance director who bleats like a baby about the power the HR director wields. As for what they do;- Consider that it costs £30k to recruit a middle manager at £50kpa. Over four years that manager will cost £230k which unlike a machine, purchased for the same money, is not offset against tax. If the role is not supported, development not addressed, that manager will leave, having coasted for the last two years and taken a year to settle into the role in the first place. The £230k machine, however will still be going strong, due to a £40kpa maintainence contract and it's cost has been fully reclaimed after tax. A good HR director knows more about company structure than the CEO, more of current law, coaches the entire board of directors to do their jobs better, fires them if they don't respond. The HR director generally reports to the CEO, but with a dotted line into the chairman and can remove a CEO who is not performing. Salaries vary from £60-160k, dependant on what level is required. Trust me, to do this job you will require at least 10yrs senior HR experience, be fully conversant with british and european employment and business law, or be above the level of CEO in a medium sized company with stronger than average people management skills. At £92k they'll get a competent HR director, but only with careful selection.
Reply ID 28601
Not certain I believe that HR is the most strategic of all positions. I have for nearly 10 years recruited for senior appointments within a specific industry sector (software and professional IT services). In my experience it is very rare for HR to get anyway involved in the recruitment senior people such as VPs, EVPs, Country Manager, Divisional Directors, Board Execs, and ‘C’ level (CTO, CXO, CEO, CIO). If you checked the NASDAQ 100 list http://dynamic.nasdaq.com/dynamic/nasdaq100_activity.stm I have recruited for almost every software and services/outsourcing company on that list and other than agree terms of business and perhaps to chase eventual employment contracts HR do not get involved with the input of what I consider to be the real strategic thinkers of organisations. HR are rarely seen as a ‘driver of business’ or involved in ‘go to market strategy’. I’m not knocking HR but when a company makes a genuine strategic hire (or for that matter when someone leaves) it makes the papers. It is unusual to read in strategic business literature (say the FT, Forbes, Fortune) that X HR person has left/joined Y company. But you will read this for numerous other roles. If you look at the profiles for most CEOs of any sector it is rare that they have an HR background they tend to have sales, marketing, finance (and in my specific sector - technology). Anyway - sorry Admin this is not really Hertford specific.
Reply ID 28615
quote:Agreed, this has been the norm, but that situation is changing. Most arrogant, old-school executives only realise they needed HR after they are removed from office for poor performance. Recruitment remains the responsibility of department heads and is never part of a strategic HR role. Many HR trained personnel do end up in outsourced recruitment agencies, however, as few who enter HR make the transition from the management's dogsbody to a strategic level and recruitment is an easier, more lucrative option at the lower levels. There is currently a shortage of top level HR executives and a sudden need, hence much improved packages. Local government is heavily unionised and percieved to be overstaffed. The need for strong HR is particularly relevent. Even in most private companies, staffing accounts for the vast majority of cost of sales and board level competence, or lack of it, key to final profits or in this case, the bill to the taxpayer. No other directorial background is equipped to address these issues, yet many are reluctant to admit it and no other pays for itself so fast. Directorship level HR doesn't recruit senior board members or any member of staff if operating correctly. Even at lower level, HR should never recruit or interview, but so often it does because department heads are incompetent at people management. HR certainly would never recruit IT, unless part of a particularly incompetent management. What it does do is advise and direct those decisions which relate specifically to company structure, including board appointments. For that reason it often recieves a hostile reception from directors, who see it as the spy in the camp. It does not make the papers often, but appointments resulting from it's recommendations do. That is intentional. A self-publicising CEO is expected, but in an HR director would be considered unprofessional by his/her peers. A CEO is obliged by law to publish, whereas HR is bound by law and the nature of the job to not reveal it's activities. They are there to restructure, support and coach, not grab the glory. When you go to see Kylie Minogue, you see Kylie on stage, not her songwriter, manager, producer or the DAT machine that augments her vocals. Yes, the chairman may well ask HR, "Do we need to replace the CEO/ IT director/company secretary/finance director and if so, how do we do it?" The replacement's credentials will, in such circumstances, be presented to HR first. HR makes better CEOs, it rarely takes the role itself. Sorry. A long post. It just happens to be my specialist subject.[:I]
Originally posted by Avarice
Not certain I believe that HR is the most strategic of all positions. I have for nearly 10 years recruited for senior appointments within a specific industry sector (software and professional IT services). In my experience it is very rare for HR to get anyway involved in the recruitment senior people such as VPs, EVPs, Country Manager, Divisional Directors, Board Execs, and ‘C’ level (CTO, CXO, CEO, CIO). If you checked the NASDAQ 100 list http://dynamic.nasdaq.com/dynamic/nasdaq100_activity.stm I have recruited for almost every software and services/outsourcing company on that list and other than agree terms of business and perhaps to chase eventual employment contracts HR do not get involved with the input of what I consider to be the real strategic thinkers of organisations. HR are rarely seen as a ‘driver of business’ or involved in ‘go to market strategy’. I’m not knocking HR but when a company makes a genuine strategic hire (or for that matter when someone leaves) it makes the papers. It is unusual to read in strategic business literature (say the FT, Forbes, Fortune) that X HR person has left/joined Y company. But you will read this for numerous other roles. If you look at the profiles for most CEOs of any sector it is rare that they have an HR background they tend to have sales, marketing, finance (and in my specific sector - technology). Anyway - sorry Admin this is not really Hertford specific.