First of all, I am an ordinary member of the IFA and don’t personally know any of the individuals involved in the current controversy. For the purpose of this piece I am going to take a contrarian view to current popular opinion, as it seems that everyone has had a say at this stage about the pay and exit of the former general secretary of the IFA, Pat Smith.
So what exactly is the controversy about? Is it about the level of pay or is it the fact that this pay was not previously known by the membership. Surely ordinary members could not reasonably expect that the chief executive of the organisation is on minimum wage or the average industrial salary.
What should the general secretary of the IFA be paid?
Setting the chief executive’s salary against the income of farmer members is not reasonable comparison either. So far, I have not heard or read a piece where somebody with an opinion on this issue has suggested what they think the general secretary of the IFA should be paid.
Traditionally that pay was benchmarked against the equivalent person in the Department of Agriculture. This makes sense. However, if this was the case, then in times of cutbacks and pay reductions in the Department of Agriculture, the same principles should apply to IFA executives.
The leadership of the IFA do have some questions to answer also. Who approved the pay of the general secretary and what was the basis for deciding this pay?
When did the current leadership become aware that the general secretary’s pay was no longer in line with the secretary general in the Department of Agriculture?
The latest financial statements that I can see published by the IFA for the year ended 31 March 2014 show an income figure of €12.9m and expenditure figure of €11.5m. The accounts are certainly short on detail, with no notes published. The membership will expect more detailed accounts to be published shortly for the year to March 2015.
”If you pay peanuts you get monkeys”
For the past few days many members have been outraged at the level of pay of the general secretary. However, members also need to bear in mind that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys and no member wants to be sending monkeys to Government Buildings or to Brussels to negotiate billon euro budgets on our behalf.
Read more
Full coverage: Turmoil at the IFA
First of all, I am an ordinary member of the IFA and don’t personally know any of the individuals involved in the current controversy. For the purpose of this piece I am going to take a contrarian view to current popular opinion, as it seems that everyone has had a say at this stage about the pay and exit of the former general secretary of the IFA, Pat Smith.
So what exactly is the controversy about? Is it about the level of pay or is it the fact that this pay was not previously known by the membership. Surely ordinary members could not reasonably expect that the chief executive of the organisation is on minimum wage or the average industrial salary.
What should the general secretary of the IFA be paid?
Setting the chief executive’s salary against the income of farmer members is not reasonable comparison either. So far, I have not heard or read a piece where somebody with an opinion on this issue has suggested what they think the general secretary of the IFA should be paid.
Traditionally that pay was benchmarked against the equivalent person in the Department of Agriculture. This makes sense. However, if this was the case, then in times of cutbacks and pay reductions in the Department of Agriculture, the same principles should apply to IFA executives.
The leadership of the IFA do have some questions to answer also. Who approved the pay of the general secretary and what was the basis for deciding this pay?
When did the current leadership become aware that the general secretary’s pay was no longer in line with the secretary general in the Department of Agriculture?
The latest financial statements that I can see published by the IFA for the year ended 31 March 2014 show an income figure of €12.9m and expenditure figure of €11.5m. The accounts are certainly short on detail, with no notes published. The membership will expect more detailed accounts to be published shortly for the year to March 2015.
”If you pay peanuts you get monkeys”
For the past few days many members have been outraged at the level of pay of the general secretary. However, members also need to bear in mind that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys and no member wants to be sending monkeys to Government Buildings or to Brussels to negotiate billon euro budgets on our behalf.
Read more
Full coverage: Turmoil at the IFA
SHARING OPTIONS