Thursday, 29 October 2009

Another Day, Another 'Cash to PwC' Story...

I sometimes wonder if NCC is keeping PwC in profit single handedly.

Apparently, the Head of Service for Neighbourhood Regeneration at NCC has left/is leaving. Apparently it's absolutely VITAL that a replacement is found immediately because of all the high profile projects the previous postholder was leading on.

So, presumably the previous incumbent gave at least two months notice of leaving, due to the urgency recruitment got underway quickly, advert out, say, after a month, interviews approximately six weeks later, new person has to give notice on their current job, vacancy is open for three months max. Somebody acts up in the meantime, after all there is bound to be somebody who has been closely involved in at least some of these vital projects no?

No. That's not the Nottingham City Council way. What you do is go straight to old mates PricewaterhouseCoopers and get them to supply somebody. Maximum of 22 weeks mind, we don't want to go mad. After all that will only cost us £68,000.

Uh what? £68k for 22 weeks? An equivalent cost of £161k a year? You serious?

A Head of Service is not a particularly senior manager, they normally report to a Director, who reports to a Corporate Director who in turn reports to the Chief Executive (the lovable JoTo). So what's referred to as '4th tier' then, a middle manager. Not normally the level of post whose loss causes the wheels to fall off the wagon, even though NCC's wheels are mostly held on with chewing gum.

Oh look here's a clue as to what might be going on. In the box for comments from human resources we find

"It is understood that the person identified, while known to the Director, has been identified by PwC based on..." (my emphasis).

When in doubt, get one of your mates in, THAT'S the NCC way. In return you've got somebody putting a good word in should you find yourself looking for alternative employment at a 'leading' consultancy firm sometime in the future.

Update; comment under 'Sneaky' suggests that using consultants in this way is to get round the recruitment freeze due to the upcoming redundancies. Makes sense. The analysis that is, not the recruitment freeze...

No comments: