Moira Stuart has finally been sacked from the BBC. No reprieve, even though colleagues, MPs and the like protested about it. But she need not feel so bad. Some in the BBC are saying "She should be OK. Now she can be a freelance and get as much as those already fronting the newscasts".
In my wife's business of consulting that's exactly the same. Stop being employed - go freelance - get double the money! Does it sound like crazy economics? Does to me.
Apparently advertising, computing........any business, in fact, carries on like this. No doubt some accountant will say it all makes sense, but my guess is that's why we pay so much for NHS "consultants", for "surveys" and endless "reports"!
MPs in trouble
-
This Parliament has seen a surge of cases against MPs. There are now 18 MPs
sitting as Independents because their parties no longer support them. 8
were Co...
18 hours ago
.jpg)
4 comments:
Consultants and contractors generally get more money because they have to bear all the hidden costs that are covered by an employer when you work for a company or organisation.
Things like sickness, annual leave, bank holidays, pension, liability insurance, normal running expenses, etc. You would be surprised how it mounts up - and they have no redundancy rights plus a very limited contract or agreement.
Companies can thus avoid committing themselves. That plus the savings they make generally makes it worth their while to pay what they pay.
I know you're right on the matter of more expenses, etc. My point was really about organisations like the BBC paying far more for freelancers when employees would cost far less in licence fee expenditure.
The same goes for NHS spending on agency nurses when a bit more planning would ensure proper employment.
Consultancy got out of hand in the late 90s. My cousin worked in Silicon Valley and he would charge for his time just to be interviewed for a job... and was always paid.
Nice work indeed!
It would probably cost less to employ people, when all is going fine. But organisations are not willing to take enough people on - and the reason for that is that it is very difficult and expensive for them to ‘shed’ employees when things are not going fine and they need to.
They probably factor expenses involved in redundancy and wrongful dismissal in there as well and that tips the balance.
Post a Comment