Question. If 53 people receive remuneration of $100,000 or more within Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, how many people in total, are employed within TRONT.
You know - what percentage of the employees earn over $100,000 - is it 10%, 50% or 70%?
I posed the question to the office and was told that that information is confidential and unable to be disclosed. I could go through all the entities and work it out, and I may indeed do that.
I will find out the answer and it won't be the bullshit answer. But what percentage do you think earn over $100,000 from TRONT?
Does it matter?
Does it matter what percentage of the total earn above $100,000?
Would you be upset if, say, 40% of the total staff earned over 100k?
Does it matter what percentage of them are Ngai Tahu Iwi members?
Does it matter what they do and where in the organisation they do it?
Would you care if no one from the Office earned over 100k and it was only employees in Holdings that got the big money?
Would you care if it was the other way round?
Does it matter what percentage of the rest, who earn less, are Ngai Tahu Iwi members?
If you do care, like me, then i am sure we will be interested in those statistics.
By my base calculation. There is a total of around 9 million being paid to these 53 people.
4 comments:
there is the Office of TronT, NTHC and NTHC Subs.
i think it is a good line of questioning and i don't see why we can't at least have a commercial / Office split
if you break it down too low then private details would be obvious
my pick is that the total number of employees which includes factory workers and jet boat drivers as well as all others would skew results a little
a couple of questions - how many in total work at 158 Hereford - how many in Office and how many in NTHC - how many for operational things (ie IT and financing) - how many for program delivery etc and then see where the salary bands fall
The question for me is that all the indicators fell but the wage bill keeps rising. Therefore what is a base salary, what is performance based and what are additional benefits. So far I am a little hazy on who met what targets.
If everyone met the targets then they should be fully paid. But what are the targets?
As for Ngai Tahu Versus non Ngai Tahu. It seems to me we are a joke, have a look at NTHC and you will only find Ngai Tahu cleaning the dishes.
I am also interested in who gets paid what. It may be true that in NTHC those being paid big sums above the table were not Ngai Tahu. It has been said before, do we get value for the money?
With the new NTHC boards and subs I would like to think the performance of all entities would be raised and we did get value for money.
I would like to see qualified Ngai Tahu working for NTHC at all levels. But not just because they are Ngai Tahu. As long as we have the politicians out of interfering in our businesses (hopefully this is cemented i place)and transparency measures are in place then it will come right over time.
Simple facts are, if you want good people to operate businesses then you have to pay them the going rate. Then we need boards to require them to perform.
Re the Office - if half way through the year TRONT tells the CEO to save money but to retain staff the wages bill will remain the same and the outcomes will go down.
It easy to criticise wages - but the human capital and values that keeps the organisation going. We can't keep taking the easy soundbite options.
kia ora anon
When selecting the best person for the job there are a number of subjective measures which are weighted. A employer can decide that certain attributes are 'worth' more, in relative terms than other attributes. And these get considered, along with everything else. If you want, you can put being a Ngai Tahu iwi member as a desired attribute with a high weighting.
That doesn't mean other aspects aren't considered. You still get the best person - the difference is that you are saying because you are a member of the iwi that increases your 'bestness' because of the high relative weighting being a member of the iwi has.
If you want an accountant they still have to be an accountant. But if you have two candidates and one is Ngai Tahu and if that is given consideration, via a higher weighting - then guess who gets the job. And who wins then? - them, their whanau, their hapu, their iwi. Who loses - no one.
I am not saying that that process isn't happening in some way, shape or form now - whatever is happening i'd like to see it increased.
But why not employ Ngai Tahu - you seem to imply that Ngai Tahu aren't qualified or experienced enough to hold those reins and if you are saying that, I disagree.
But you are right we have had this discussion before.
To me, it is prudent to ask questions regarding costs in the midst of a 'economic tsunami'.
Post a Comment