Huntly, we have a problem...

**Wingnut** · 25th April 2009, 11:52

Originally Posted by Robert Taylor

Come to mention it youre correct,that website really sucks. Yet another thing MNZ cant get right in spite of 300k per year on salaries.

How many are employed by MNZ? How may that would come under that $300K package that is?

**budda** · 25th April 2009, 14:24

That'd be
1 CEO
1 Operations Manager
1 Admin Manager
3 Admin Staff

Lets not get carried away trying to figure out what people are being paid - the guts of the matter is, are we getting best VALUE for the $$$'s we are paying ? It seems to me quite likely that, given the convoluted systems they appear to be using in some cases, the staff are working HARD to provide the services they do - we may NOT be over staffed, but if we resource them correctly we MAY be able to create efficiencies that will lead to more "productivity" for the wage bill ........ lets not forget that these are peoples jobs and livelihoods under scrutiny.

If it was YOUR job being looked at by a shareholder group, you'd want to know that they were taking a GOOD and reasoned look, not just adopting a slash and burn approach to lower operating costs, surely ?

**The Chow** · 25th April 2009, 14:28

Originally Posted by budda

That'd be
1 CEO
1 Operations Manager
1 Admin Manager
3 Admin Staff

And of those I think there would be two who probably equated to around half the wages/salary bill . No guess who? Would I be in the ball park budda?

**wharfy** · 25th April 2009, 17:43

Originally Posted by budda

If it was YOUR job being looked at by a shareholder group, you'd want to know that they were taking a GOOD and reasoned look, not just adopting a slash and burn approach to lower operating costs, surely ?

Having just survived a re-structure I couldn't agree more ......

**The Chow** · 25th April 2009, 18:21

Originally Posted by budda

That'd be
1 CEO
1 Operations Manager
1 Admin Manager
3 Admin Staff

Lets not get carried away trying to figure out what people are being paid - the guts of the matter is, are we getting best VALUE for the $$$'s we are paying ? It seems to me quite likely that, given the convoluted systems they appear to be using in some cases, the staff are working HARD to provide the services they do - we may NOT be over staffed, but if we resource them correctly we MAY be able to create efficiencies that will lead to more "productivity" for the wage bill ........ lets not forget that these are peoples jobs and livelihoods under scrutiny.

If it was YOUR job being looked at by a shareholder group, you'd want to know that they were taking a GOOD and reasoned look, not just adopting a slash and burn approach to lower operating costs, surely ?

My god oh portly one some very reasonable points of view , twice in one day!
Watch it