The Red Tractor ACCS referendum

[Chris F]

I have a very good handle on payments to people in these organisations
But i believe you are seriously out of touch with the remuneration you stated for the RT Chair. However I am happy to be proved wrong
Just to be clear I am referring to the Chair, not the CEO.

I was referring to full time equivalent salary - to be clear. But I understand what you are saying. Maybe I should have said £65 a hour. Based on hourly rates, Chairs and CEO are usually in the same ballpark.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Wow, I haven't posted on here in ages.

Red Tractor is a disaster zone, in more ways than one. I just wrote out a thread on Twitter about it, I'm not going to repate it all here, although this is the link to the posts:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356200019968331776

Thank you, that is very useful information.

I'm going to concentrate on AIC. Should hopefully get an email off to them today to request they change their unfair standards.

General shout out to everyone on here. If anyone has time to send in a readers letter to FW, that would be good, backing up Clive's points from the FW article last week. I think any letters to FW would need to get in ASAP in order to stand any chance of getting published for Friday. FW editor came on this thread the other day, to confirm that the best person to write letters to for the 'Opinion' pages is...

Executive Editor: Philip Clarke
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: +44 (0)20 8057 8433

Thanks Gents.

P.S. I'd like to think RT Cereals and AIC would reform their rules and standards to help UK cereal growers, but I fear it will either take them too long, or they won't actually ever do it (because balance of power in the boardroom is weighted in favour of industry/processors, as opposed to the NFU and farmers interests. Hence the continued pressure we're going to have to exert on them from all angles. I do actually feel a bit for Guy Smith, because he's just taken on the chairman role, and he's got all this lot to deal with. He's ended up straight in at the deep end, with a whole lot of ill feeling, unhappy farmers and they're going to have to deal with our pressurised campaign, which is only going to get stronger. RT, AIC, AHDB etc. are going to have to make some press releases soon to provide some strong intent for immediate change and to deal with this whole mess and unfair treatment of UK cereal growers.

 

[An Gof]

It's a total guess. But based on other roles in farming organisations, a full time role would carry this sort of remuneration. @Guy Smith has already said he ears £10k a year for 20 days, so Full time salary (220 days a year) for a more senior position would be £130k plus.

If this surprises you then you really don't want to know what the top jobs in the AHDB get paid.

Not much point guessing when you put up inflammatory figures like that
Come on Chris you are better than that. I can’t find the figure in the advert for the position Ms Tacon has taken on but it appears the previous remuneration for the Chair when Lady Rolfe was appointed was £21k. That’s rather different to the figures you threw about.

 

[dontknowanything]

Not much point guessing when you put up inflammatory figures like that
Come on Chris you are better than that. I can’t find the figure in the advert for the position Ms Tacon has taken on but it appears the previous remuneration for the Chair when Lady Rolfe was appointed was £21k. That’s rather different to the figures you threw about.

£21k for 30 days is £700 per day. Multiply this by 256 (number of working days in the UK) and you get £179,200pa - so Chris's estimates look a bit low.

 

[Steevo]

Wow, I haven't posted on here in ages.

Red Tractor is a disaster zone, in more ways than one. I just wrote out a thread on Twitter about it, I'm not going to repate it all here, although this is the link to the posts:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356200019968331776

Great to have you back!!!

.....and a great Twitter post!

 

[Chris F]

Not much point guessing when you put up inflammatory figures like that
Come on Chris you are better than that. I can’t find the figure in the advert for the position Ms Tacon has taken on but it appears the previous remuneration for the Chair when Lady Rolfe was appointed was £21k. That’s rather different to the figures you threw about.
View attachment 938085

As said already - I was referring to full time equivalent salary. Apologies for the confusion - I will correct my post further up to say this. However, based on those figures I wasn't far wrong.

 

[An Gof]

As said already - I was referring to full time equivalent salary. Apologies for the confusion - I will correct my post further up to say this. However, based on those figures I wasn't far wrong.

Full time salary equivalent is irrelevant. It’s not a full time post.

 

[texelburger]

I have sent an email to Farmers Weekly to substantiate their claim:
"Farmers are fairly evenly split in their approach to the Red Tractor consultation on standards – and the organisation in general – a recent Farmers Weekly poll suggests.
Using our various social media channels, we asked if farmers supported the proposed changes as set out in the consultation launched in early January, which seeks to strengthen standards in some areas, but also to simplify and streamline the regime in others.
Across all three platforms (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) we found that, out of the 1,527 who took part, 56% said they did support the changes, while 44% said they did not."

Lets see if they respond!

Good man,I honestly don't know how they arrived at those figures.I have never met a farmer who is in full agreement of RT even when it was less onerous and burdensome before the constant goldplating.Never.

 

[Feldspar]

Talking about salaries and personalities risks diluting the major issue.

If it is the case that imports only to meet the standards set out in @dontknowanything's Twitter thread, then the problem is worse than I had feared. I thought that it might turn out that actually all other foreign producers did in the end have to comply with their own assurance schemes that weren't that much different to ours.

Yes, some imported wheat might come from Germany, where they probably mainly produce to similar standards anyway (although this is just an assumption at present because I haven't checked properly), but that's not the point. For a start, they still have the support of the CAP which we will soon not have an equivalent to. However, more importantly, if it's possible to buy in wheat from wherever with pretty much complete blindness to the way in which that wheat was produced beyond some tests at intake, then this can be used to hold the price of our wheat (with the additional costs of our standards) and the playing field is in no way level.

The argument I've heard for things like Red Tractor is that we want to build a brand that allows us to access new markets abroad and command a premium. I think this is wishful thinking. I would be interested to know if there are example of this in international trade, especially as we seem to be struggling to achieve it at home. We've seen it for geographical indications, but I'm not aware of Red Tractor achieving this (although know very little about this so could well be wrong). I need to check, but the WTO doesn't recognise a lot of this stuff. If in the end all other countries do what we do regarding import standards, then this argument fails.

 

[texelburger]

I have a very good handle on payments to people in these organisations
But i believe you are seriously out of touch with the remuneration you stated for the RT Chair. However I am happy to be proved wrong
Just to be clear I am referring to the Chair, not the CEO.

Are they able to add expenses to their Salary ?

 

[An Gof]

Are they able to add expenses to their Salary ?

I don’t know but I would be surprised if out of pocket expenses for travelling, accommodation and sustenance were not allowed.

 

[ollie989898]

To be honest I wouldnt expect anything less from such an upstanding organisation, you get the same treatment from NSF when they tell you youre about to be booted out the scheme because a mill so say found trace of ergot (well bugs they said first) but when sent for cleaning, zero bugs found.
The man from NSF phoned and spoke to me like I was a piece of dirt and wanted action plans and some other plan to ensure it didnt happen again. 1 load in over a 1,000t of milling wheat, fecking jobsworths waste of space

Anyone talking to me like that would have had short shirft- I would have told them to reload the lorry and send it back to me immediately.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Talking about salaries and personalities risks diluting the major issue.

If it is the case that imports only to meet the standards set out in @dontknowanything's Twitter thread, then the problem is worse than I had feared. I thought that it might turn out that actually all other foreign producers did in the end have to comply with their own assurance schemes that weren't that much different to ours.

Yes, some imported wheat might come from Germany, where they probably mainly produce to similar standards anyway (although this is just an assumption at present because I haven't checked properly), but that's not the point. For a start, they still have the support of the CAP which we will soon not have an equivalent to. However, more importantly, if it's possible to buy in wheat from wherever with pretty much complete blindness to the way in which that wheat was produced beyond some tests at intake, then this can be used to hold the price of our wheat (with the additional costs of our standards) and the playing field is in no way level.

The argument I've heard for things like Red Tractor is that we want to build a brand that allows us to access new markets abroad and command a premium. I think this is wishful thinking. I would be interested to know if there are example of this in international trade, especially as we seem to be struggling to achieve it at home. We've seen it for geographical indications, but I'm not aware of Red Tractor achieving this (although know very little about this so could well be wrong). I need to check, but the WTO doesn't recognise a lot of this stuff. If in the end all other countries do what we do regarding import standards, then this argument fails.

The German wheat will have similar standards to ours in as much as we have a broadly similar regulatory history - partly due to EU membership and partly due to the (that word again) "comingling" of so much of our trade and expectations. Which in itself is fine. However a purchaser in the UK is unlikely to afford the UK farmer the same courtesy unless it has a sticker for assurance even if the product is good. Which is remarkable really but we (and the NFU) have let that happen. I've said so for 20 years and it is why I am not a member. Its really really unforgivable to not put pressure on this for 20 years.

The Red Tractor have long been trying to claim they have a loved brand ,but they don't. Its too generic and too compromised. The fact that we cannot use the brand to demand a premium tells you all you need to know about the brand.

They could do a lot better of course, but they don't want to. Its an inward looking organisation which we are better off without.

 

[Chris F]

Full time salary equivalent is irrelevant. It’s not a full time post.

Not irrelevant at all - its how you compare pay across organisations. The other method is day rate - which I have included in my above post as well for clarification.

Shall we agree on £700 a day? Either way to look at it, that's a good level of remuneration and as per my original point, tends to have a part to play when accepting a role.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Let's park the discussion of salaries. Partly relevant, 'cos we're all paying them, but not exactly on topic.

I think Guy Smith has made the point on here that there's more chance to make change from the inside of an organisation, which I guess is true, and hopefully Guy will do all he can to make change at RT, so that we get something more fit for purpose, and works for us rather than against us. That said, it's only ever got worse over the past 20 years.

I think this is going to take too long. And so we need to pressurise from every possible angle. Starting reasonably and with dialogue, and then ramping up our campaigning. It's not difficult to make assurance schemes look pretty silly when you start hitting the public and media with facts they didn't know about. @Feldspar and @dontknowanything have come up with some factual information and some well thought out points.

I want to work with RT, AIC, HGCA etc. on this, but they are going to have to listen, work with us and then act to make their position tenable. This isn't going to go away, and I think the points made in this thread are showing the assurance industry up as acting unfairly, unreasonably and (unbelievably) against the interest of UK cereal farmers who they are supposed to be supporting.

 

[dontknowanything]

Let's park the discussion of salaries. Partly relevant, 'cos we're all paying them, but not exactly on topic.

I think Guy Smith has made the point on here that there's more chance to make change from the inside of an organisation, which I guess is true, and hopefully Guy will do all he can to make change at RT, so that we get something more fit for purpose, and works for us rather than against us. That said, it's only ever got worse over the past 20 years.

I think this is going to take too long. And so we need to pressurise from every possible angle. Starting reasonably and with dialogue, and then ramping up our campaigning. It's not difficult to make assurance schemes look pretty silly when you start hitting the public and media with facts they didn't know about. @Feldspar and @dontknowanything have come up with some factual information and some well thought out points.

I want to work with RT, AIC, HGCA etc. on this, but they are going to have to listen, work with us and then act to make their position tenable. This isn't going to go away, and I think the points made in this thread are showing the assurance industry up as acting unfairly, unreasonably and (unbelievably) against the interest of UK cereal farmers who they are supposed to be supporting.

I can understand the reluctance of someone working for RT to oppose changing RT. It may mean they have to move house, lose their job, or something else undesirable.

What I cannot understand is the staunch support from NFU, who should be looking out for the interest of farmers, not engaging in a costly and pointless vanity exercise just so they can say "we are the best".

I think all of us farmers would love to produce gold plated food that sells for a premium, but that very obviously does not, has not, and probably will not, happen.

 

[Breakthru]

Short and concise message to @Guy Smith
Reduce the Gold plating substantially and Reduce the cost to Farmers.

 

[homefarm]

I suspect your grouse is that you think it is outrageously unreasonable that these buyers demand RT assurance. If that’s the case it’s best you go straight to the horses mouth to ask them directly as to why they want the cereals they buy off you to be RT assured.

There is nothing stopping other organisations setting up rival assurance schemes which buyers of U.K. cereals could use if they so wanted.

Let's park the discussion of salaries. Partly relevant, 'cos we're all paying them, but not exactly on topic.

I think Guy Smith has made the point on here that there's more chance to make change from the inside of an organisation, which I guess is true, and hopefully Guy will do all he can to make change at RT, so that we get something more fit for purpose, and works for us rather than against us. That said, it's only ever got worse over the past 20 years.

I think this is going to take too long. And so we need to pressurise from every possible angle. Starting reasonably and with dialogue, and then ramping up our campaigning. It's not difficult to make assurance schemes look pretty silly when you start hitting the public and media with facts they didn't know about. @Feldspar and @dontknowanything have come up with some factual information and some well thought out points.

I want to work with RT, AIC, HGCA etc. on this, but they are going to have to listen, work with us and then act to make their position tenable. This isn't going to go away, and I think the points made in this thread are showing the assurance industry up as acting unfairly, unreasonably and (unbelievably) against the interest of UK cereal farmers who they are supposed to be supporting.

I totally agree with what you say above G&G. There is no need to know how much anyone is paid or how they got the job we just need change.

Guy might be trying change from within but he has also shown us another route above. ie a rival scheme.
I am willing to put some cash to whatever the majority decide but perhaps the quickest route would be a rival scheme where farmers actually held a deciding vote.
After all that is what I voted for in the poll.

 

[Grass And Grain]

I totally agree with what you say above G&G. There is no need to know how much anyone is paid or how they got the job we just need change.

Guy might be trying change from within but he has also shown us another route above. ie a rival scheme.
I am willing to put some cash to whatever the majority decide but perhaps the quickest route would be a rival scheme where farmers actually held a deciding vote.
After all that is what I voted for in the poll.

Rival scheme is a huge job, but it would work. I'm sure all the farmers would jump ship 'cos everyone hates RT, that then closes off the RT income stream - and that's the end of them. Then we are in charge of our own destiny. Will it happen? Some people have a very strong argument that all we should need to do is tick a declaration on the passport to say produced to UK standards, and that should be better than most of the imported grains. You would hope a new scheme wasn't necessary, but it eventually might be the quickest route to make change if RT won't change.

UK asked for EU to reform. They arrogantly wouldn't, then UK electorate voted to leave the EU. Same could happen with RT. The strength of feeling is so high.

Advert goes something like this. Don't pay RT this year, send your fees to us, then YOU own the new scheme and farmers then control it.

I'm going down the dialogue route to start with and to work with them to try and get change. If no look, think we should look at legalities of some of it with crowd funding at tff (no need for that yet). Failing the first two strategies, a new scheme. Cereals is easiest place to start.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I totally agree with what you say above G&G. There is no need to know how much anyone is paid or how they got the job we just need change.

Guy might be trying change from within but he has also shown us another route above. ie a rival scheme.
I am willing to put some cash to whatever the majority decide but perhaps the quickest route would be a rival scheme where farmers actually held a deciding vote.
After all that is what I voted for in the poll.

What do we need a scheme for? We have regulations to abide with and we are trained to become competent operators in areas regulation deems it necessary.

There is no need of a scheme. Where there's a scheme theres a....