• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Nice of the Telegraph to advertise on behalf of Aston Carter

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Nice of the Telegraph to advertise on behalf of Aston Carter

    Swap mis-selling staff offered pay worth more than £200,000 a year - Telegraph

    A great pity that the Telegraph are way too stupid to understand the difference between contract and permanent staff. They were never like that when I was a young lad.

    #2
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Swap mis-selling staff offered pay worth more than £200,000 a year - Telegraph

    A great pity that the Telegraph are way too stupid to understand the difference between contract and permanent staff. They were never like that when I was a young lad.
    Telegraph:
    Another London-based job offered “client relationship manager” posts at a rate of £600 to £900. At the top rate, that would be equivalent to an annual salary of about £230,000.
    Spectacular fail. Need to work more than 54 weeks per year as well as paying no Employer's NICs.
    Job motivation: how the powerful steal from the stupid.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Ignis Fatuus View Post
      Telegraph:
      Spectacular fail. Need to work more than 54 weeks per year as well as paying no Employer's NICs.
      Just imagine for a moment you are fleapit rag journalist. Take £900*5*52. £234000. Ignore bank holidays/holidays/training/Employer NIC/expenses/accountancy/etcetcetc.

      Though I am a tad disappointed they did not round up to £240k. Or maybe assume a 7 day working week.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
        Just imagine for a moment you are fleapit rag journalist. Take £900*5*52. £234000. Ignore bank holidays/holidays/training/Employer NIC/expenses/accountancy/etcetcetc.

        Though I am a tad disappointed they did not round up to £240k. Or maybe assume a 7 day working week.
        did they not quote how much his house was worth?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
          Swap mis-selling staff offered pay worth more than £200,000 a year - Telegraph

          A great pity that the Telegraph are way too stupid to understand the difference between contract and permanent staff. They were never like that when I was a young lad.
          They also do not know the difference between a headhunter and a recruitment agency. I have cancelled my subscription.
          Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
            They also do not know the difference between a headhunter and a recruitment agency. I have cancelled my subscription.
            I assume you will send the subscription to the Margaret Thatcher foundation?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
              I assume you will send the subscription to the Margaret Thatcher foundation?
              Naturally
              Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

              Comment


                #8
                Handy that you can't put comments on there also to rectify the glaring mistakes in the article
                Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

                I preferred version 1!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by BoredBloke View Post
                  Handy that you can't put comments on there also to rectify the glaring mistakes in the article
                  Even if you could put it there they would have removed it.

                  One article yonks ago about houses in a rich area of London they got the details of the surrounding area wrong. I corrected them and within 24 hours my post was removed.
                  "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X