Car allowances for senior Scotrail staff

[Rescars]

It would appear that the salary scales of the senior staff at Scotrail are now in the public domain: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-62008409

BBC Scotland can reveal chief operating officer Joanne Maguire earns between £175,000 and £180,000 in her role as ScotRail's most senior official.

Meanwhile, interim finance director James Griffin is paid between £170,000 and £175,000 and David Lister, who is safety, sustainability and asset director, has a salary in the range of £150,000 to £155,000.
Mr Lister is also given £7,500 as part of a car allowance.

The operator also confirmed service delivery director David Simpson earns between £135,000 and £140,000 and commercial director Lesley Kane is paid between £130,000 and £135,000. Both are also in receipt of the additional car payment.

Whatever or not the arguments may be about the levels of remuneration, isn't it strange that the package for those responsible for running the railway includes a specific allowance for the cost of a car? Hardly an encouragement towards ensuring the trains actually run on time.

 

[Horizon22]

For a large organisation (5000+) such as ScotRail, those figures don't sound too outlandish. I'd agree the car allowance is somewhat odd, although may be useful from time to time (attending depots and other sites).

 

[43066]

For a large organisation (5000+) such as ScotRail, those figures don't sound too outlandish. I'd agree the car allowance is somewhat odd, although may be useful from time to time (attending depots and other sites).

I was about to say exactly the same thing! The unions shouldn’t focus too much on this point when I don’t think there’s any evidence that people in senior railway management roles out earn their equivalents in other industries. If anything the opposite is the case.

 

[AngusH]

I see nothing wrong with this, they're being paid to run the railway, not to travel on it.

I suppose eating your own dog food is important, but trying the competing brands may also be useful.

There's also the point of getting to odd sites at odd hours.
Maybe they won't be called out, but if they are they should be able to depart instantly if needed.

From the article, the roles listed as car allowances:

- safety, sustainability and asset director
- service delivery director
- commercial director

All of which could conceivably need to travel to odd sites.

Are the others also getting car allowances?
It isn't stated as such so far as I can see.

 

[43066]

I suppose eating your own dog food is important, but trying the competing brands may also be useful.

 

[Sonik]

I don't see any issue with it.

Car allowances are a standard part of most professional packages and the railway needs to be competitive to attract the best people.

 

[lachlan]

I have no problem with a car allowance provided a comparable amount is given to non-drivers. Though all journeys should be made by rail where possible and in a reasonable timeframe, IMO.

 

[43066]

I have no problem with a car allowance provided a comparable amount is given to non-drivers. Though all journeys should be made by rail where possible and in a reasonable timeframe, IMO.

When I had a car allowance (at a non railway employer) it was literally just an additional salary payment, much like a London weighting. Whether you actually used it for a car or not was entirely down to you.

 

[Bald Rick]

BR used to give senior executives a company car allowance.

and the most senior staff got a driver too.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't see any issue with it.
Car allowances are a standard part of most professional packages and the railway needs to be competitive to attract the best people.

The allowance, or company car provision, will be fully taxed and at the salary levels shown above will be at 41% or more likely 46% in Scotland.

 

[Paul Kelly]

the railway needs to be competitive to attract the best people

Is this really true? It implies the best people are greedy and easily tempted away to work in a better-paying industry, rather than staying with the railway because they are passionate about it and want to do their best. Or worse than that, that the railway needs to tempt in people from other industries who are attracted by the salary but might have relatively little knowledge of the industry.

 

[Dave W]

Is this really true? It implies the best people are greedy and easily tempted away to work in a better-paying industry, rather than staying with the railway because they are passionate about it and want to do their best. Or worse than that, that the railway needs to tempt in people from other industries who are attracted by the salary but might have relatively little knowledge of the industry.

Market forces, surely? The best people are ambitious and entirely ready to move jobs to be fairly compensated for their abilities. If the railway chooses not to pay them out of some misguided expectation of duty and loyalty then more fool the railway.

 

[43066]

Is this really true? It implies the best people are greedy and easily tempted away to work in a better-paying industry, rather than staying with the railway because they are passionate about it and want to do their best. Or worse than that, that the railway needs to tempt in people from other industries who are attracted by the salary but might have relatively little knowledge of the industry.

I don’t think it’s really reasonable to describe people in any role as “greedy” for wanting competitive pay. Most of us, if we’re being honest, go to work primarily to earn a living rather than out of some higher sense of duty or loyalty to a particular industry. I’m sure railway industry bosses are no different.

Market forces, surely? The best people are ambitious and entirely ready to move jobs to be fairly compensated for their abilities. If the railway chooses not to pay them out of some misguided expectation of duty and loyalty then more fool the railway.

Indeed.

 

[Rescars]

Many thanks for all your comments. Without entering into any debate about appropriate levels of remuneration, impact of market forces, competitive pressures etc, I return to my core point about identifying a specific payment as a car allowance. It may well be that some of these roles can be performed more easily if a car is available. It may be quite appropriate to augment the package so that a car can be afforded. It may be appropriate to pay mileage allowances. Nonetheless, it does seem perverse to make a specific payment towards an alternative (and in certain circumstances a competitive) mode of transport. This hardly looks like an encouragement to senior executives to use (or indeed rely on) the products and services for which they are responsible. In other sectors of the economy, regulators and stakeholders are keen to see that senior staff have "skin in the game", so that they focus their attention on delivering the best outcomes for their customers. It would be reassuring to feel that senior railway staff were given similar encouragement. After all, the culture in any organisation is set by and flows down from the top.

 

[The Planner]

Unless its changed recently, band 2 and above at NR get one too.

 

[kylemore]

It's nothing new - I remember reading somewhere that the first Manager of the Scottish region of the newly nationalised BR was driven daily from his home in Edinburgh to Glasgow by chauffeured car!

 

[Rescars]

It's nothing new - I remember reading somewhere that the first Manager of the Scottish region of the newly nationalised BR was driven daily from his home in Edinburgh to Glasgow by chauffeured car!

Certainly it's nothing new, but that doesn't make it right! Presumably, as the motor trade works towards its climate targets, these payments will inevitably result in senior staff being subsidised to have access to fully electric cars as part of their remuneration towards running a not fully electrified railway.

 

[43066]

Certainly it's nothing new, but that doesn't make it right! Presumably, as the motor trade works towards its climate targets, these payments will inevitably result in senior staff being subsidised to have access to fully electric cars as part of their remuneration towards running a not fully electrified railway.

I think you’re over thinking it a tad. It’s just a part of ordinary salary (and is taxed as such) which is called a “car allowance” for historical reasons. There’s no requirement to actually spend it on a car at all, let alone any particular type of vehicle.

I didn’t even own a car or much of the time I received one, and neither did many of my colleagues being based in and around central London.

 

[Horizon22]

Many thanks for all your comments. Without entering into any debate about appropriate levels of remuneration, impact of market forces, competitive pressures etc, I return to my core point about identifying a specific payment as a car allowance. It may well be that some of these roles can be performed more easily if a car is available. It may be quite appropriate to augment the package so that a car can be afforded. It may be appropriate to pay mileage allowances. Nonetheless, it does seem perverse to make a specific payment towards an alternative (and in certain circumstances a competitive) mode of transport. This hardly looks like an encouragement to senior executives to use (or indeed rely on) the products and services for which they are responsible. In other sectors of the economy, regulators and stakeholders are keen to see that senior staff have "skin in the game", so that they focus their attention on delivering the best outcomes for their customers. It would be reassuring to feel that senior railway staff were given similar encouragement. After all, the culture in any organisation is set by and flows down from the top.

You’ll be surprised by how many taxis each TOC utilises on a daily basis! There would be a significant number of cancellations and delays if they didn’t.

 

[alf]

BR used to give senior executives a company car allowance.

and the most senior staff got a driver too.

Their chauffeurs were NUR(now RMT) members.

When there was a strike the top brass had to drive themselves.

The lift attendants at Marylebone Board HQ were also NUR members.
So on strike days senior managers had to climb the stairs & miss the usual “Good morning Sir” greeting

I believe Harrods & BR Board HQ were the last places in London to have lift attendants.

 

[Clarence Yard]

One of the first things that John Nelson did when he became ER GM in the late 1980’s was do away with all the Senior Officer chauffeurs and their cars that were dotted all around the ER. He also particularly disliked the GM’s parking spot, which was marked out on the road right outside his HQ.

Best BRB Chairman we never had.

 

[Mojo]

I see nothing wrong with this, they're being paid to run the railway, not to travel on it.

There does seem to be a strange standard applied to transport professionals that doesn’t seem to be an issue in other sectors. I wouldn’t expect the Managing Director of Tesco to know what aisle the bread is located in their Bridgend store, or why the Himalayan rock salt is out of stock in the Hull store, yet the Commissioner of Transport for London is expected to know why the 08.32 bus from Mitcham Junction didn’t turn up this morning. Overall it leads to a common problem in various companies I’ve worked for, where people seem to be managing down and getting involved in other people’s jobs rather than actually having a strategic view.

 

[Horizon22]

There does seem to be a strange standard applied to transport professionals that doesn’t seem to be an issue in other sectors. I wouldn’t expect the Managing Director of Tesco to know what aisle the bread is located in their Bridgend store, or why the Himalayan rock salt is out of stock in the Hull store, yet the Commissioner of Transport for London is expected to know why the 08.32 bus from Mitcham Junction didn’t turn up this morning. Overall it leads to a common problem in various companies I’ve worked for, where people seem to be managing down and getting involved in other people’s jobs rather than actually having a strategic view.

Definitely true - too many people in more senior roles who keep their operational hat on but forget they are now in more strategic positions and need to focus on that area, which then falls by the wayside a bit. I get that many "miss" that sort of environment, but the junior and middle-ranking operational roles need to be trusted to get on with.

This may also be why senior leaders are sometiems brought in with limited or no industry experience.

 

[Ex-controller]

I think the biggest issue that the publication of salaries and expenses reveals are the double standards in attitudes towards these things from government.

Executive pay and benefits have to rise to be ‘competitive’ or to satisfy the ambition of the people in those jobs

Rail staff pay needs to be ‘affordable’ and demands for increases from staff are met with accusations of greed.

 

[AlterEgo]

Many thanks for all your comments. Without entering into any debate about appropriate levels of remuneration, impact of market forces, competitive pressures etc, I return to my core point about identifying a specific payment as a car allowance. It may well be that some of these roles can be performed more easily if a car is available. It may be quite appropriate to augment the package so that a car can be afforded. It may be appropriate to pay mileage allowances. Nonetheless, it does seem perverse to make a specific payment towards an alternative (and in certain circumstances a competitive) mode of transport. This hardly looks like an encouragement to senior executives to use (or indeed rely on) the products and services for which they are responsible. In other sectors of the economy, regulators and stakeholders are keen to see that senior staff have "skin in the game", so that they focus their attention on delivering the best outcomes for their customers. It would be reassuring to feel that senior railway staff were given similar encouragement. After all, the culture in any organisation is set by and flows down from the top.

But most jobs at that grade are going to have a car allowance. My other half has a car allowance with her job which she takes as cash instead. If you remove the car benefit you simply make the job less attractive. The railway knows not all of the workforce lives by a station.

 

[Sonik]

Many thanks for all your comments. Without entering into any debate about appropriate levels of remuneration, impact of market forces, competitive pressures etc, I return to my core point about identifying a specific payment as a car allowance. It may well be that some of these roles can be performed more easily if a car is available. It may be quite appropriate to augment the package so that a car can be afforded. It may be appropriate to pay mileage allowances. Nonetheless, it does seem perverse to make a specific payment towards an alternative (and in certain circumstances a competitive) mode of transport. This hardly looks like an encouragement to senior executives to use (or indeed rely on) the products and services for which they are responsible. In other sectors of the economy, regulators and stakeholders are keen to see that senior staff have "skin in the game", so that they focus their attention on delivering the best outcomes for their customers. It would be reassuring to feel that senior railway staff were given similar encouragement. After all, the culture in any organisation is set by and flows down from the top.

I'd agree that there's perhaps a problem with the optics of a payment specifically labeled as a car allowance, but concessionary rail travel is also a standard perk in many parts of the industry, so it can't really be said that rail travel is not encouraged. Taking away any cost differential, most people will chose train over car where it's a convenient option, especially for longer distances.

There are also a huge number of rail staff who travel by road out of necessity, and not just those at senior levels. Train crew and signalers, by definition often have to be at work before & after the start and end of service; infrastructure staff very often must travel huge distances to remote places at times when trains are not running, and even during the day need to carry materials and equipment. Many of the latter I've come across are sick of driving TBH and NR actually list tiring road travel as a priority safety issue to be managed.

 

[Falcon1200]

Maybe they won't be called out, but if they are they should be able to depart instantly if needed.

Staff at such a senior level would very rarely be called out to attend an incident; Only the most serious, eg Carmont, and even then they do not have to be there immediately.

The railway knows not all of the workforce lives by a station.

True, and for many years, even though I did have a nearby station, I still had to drive to get in for my shifts..... but I had to pay for that myself.

 

[Joe Paxton]

But most jobs at that grade are going to have a car allowance. My other half has a car allowance with her job which she takes as cash instead. If you remove the car benefit you simply make the job less attractive. The railway knows not all of the workforce lives by a station.

Remove the somewhat nonsensical car allowance (that you can opt to take as cash instead), and just add it on to the salary.

 

[Mojo]

Remove the somewhat nonsensical car allowance (that you can opt to take as cash instead), and just add it on to the salary.

It’s beneficial for organisations to pay extra money as an ‘allowance’ because more often than not they are not pensionable and also they don’t count towards a compounded percentage point salary increase.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have no problem with a car allowance provided a comparable amount is given to non-drivers. Though all journeys should be made by rail where possible and in a reasonable timeframe, IMO.

I suspect the jobs will only be available to drivers. It's very often a requirement for jobs if they might need to get somewhere at times when public transport is not workable, which is fairly likely of a public transport manager except where there are 24 hour operations.

It could be seen as discrimination against those who cannot drive for medical reasons, but you only have to make reasonable adjustments, not any adjustment even vaguely possible.