Do you earn less?

RE: Do you earn less?

bevs2251 — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 07:47:18 GMT

So back to topic somewhat. Your Royal College councillors do the job voluntarily, no stipend ?? Then they definitely are earning less !

Not sure re our board members in Australia but I do know the Registrars and Veterinary Inspectors get paid a reasonable salary. They are government-appointed so I imagine they all get some sort of payment. I know I'd want some sort of compensation if I applied to be a board member !

As to earning less, I haven't had a pay rise for at least 3 years ! My hourly locum rate has been the same for the last 5 years or more ($50 per hour - 29.30 pounds) - no holiday pay or sick leave !

Level 4 Vet (top level) in Oz award rate is $35/hour (so 20.50 pounds per hour) - of course no vet of this calibre would accept that. At my last job, I was on $42.00/hour (24.50 pounds) working a 10+ hour day, often without a break (no over-time) .

Level 1A Vet (new graduate) starts on $25.00/hour (14.60 pounds) >> $49,400 for 38 hour week (4 weeks holiday + 8 days sick leave a year + Public Holidays paid).

Minimum wage in Australia is $18.30/hour (10.70 pounds).

UK vet wages ? From internet : start at 31,150 pounds (Aus$53,250). USA vet wages - US$25.60-$76.00/hour (Aus$32.60-$96.79, 19.00-56.60 pounds). Canadian vets start on $60-$80,000 (35,950-47,900 UK pounds).

European vet wages ?

RE: Do you earn less?

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:42:52 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]That, or perhaps there should be a councillor training programme (I once heard a similar idea muted about MPs needing to be qualified as MPs, and I thought there was some merit in that idea).[/quote]

Works well in Russia, China and North Korea .............

RE: Do you earn less?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:24:32 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]I agree completely, but you should be aware that a tactic that has been employed by a minority of individuals within the College is to duck/ignore/deflect a valid criticism of the governance by reacting, disingenuously, as if the criticism were personal and directed against an individual, not their deed.[/quote]

SUCH a grey area: Whether someone should or should not take criticism personally, or whether it was actually meant personally.

I mean, you could argue that if someone isn't taking it personally, they don't care enough. And so often criticism of a process IS personal. Let's face it, Alastair Welch didn't talk about the generalities of DOIs as a criticism of governance. He made some very specific very personal accusations which frankly, if they'd been directed at me, I would have taken every bit as personally.

In this case, what would have been far more appropriate, I think, would be to find the DOIs of all current council members, see how many are wrong, and report it in terms of numbers.

[quote user="David Mills"]It appears it's a pervading line on Council, as if they are all virtuous altruistic members of our profession being Councillors out of the goodness of their hearts. Some may well be (and this isn't aimed at Claire - I've no idea of her record or involvement). This seems to imbue them with a sense of outrage and hurt if they are criticised, as if any criticism should be tempered because they are "volunteers doing their best" - almost like a child at a Nativity Play - conveniently forgetting they are doing something that is rightly scrutinised by the profession.[/quote]

Well, I suppose that is partly a consequence of the structure of council, more than anything else. In other words, if you want resilient councillors who are more immune to the sticks and stones you throw at them, then it really needs to be populated by robust professional career politician types. Probably people who are more likely to work for corporates and academia, than first opinion practice.

That, or perhaps there should be a councillor training programme (I once heard a similar idea muted about MPs needing to be qualified as MPs, and I thought there was some merit in that idea).

RE: Do you earn less?

David Mills — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:01:19 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]for such personal criticism.[/quote]

I agree completely, but you should be aware that a tactic that has been employed by a minority of individuals within the College is to duck/ignore/deflect a valid criticism of the governance by reacting, disingenuously, as if the criticism were personal and directed against an individual, not their deed. It is somewhat similar to the regimen of sloppiness around Declarations of Interest which results in the good guys (like Claire) taking flack over what seems like a nit-picky inconsequence, allowing others perhaps with significant conflicts to carry on behind the smoke-screen. Whether deliberate or just more poor governance, it is wrong.

[/quote]

The other one I like is everyone "does their best".

a) Do they? How do you measure that?

b) Since when has "doing your best" been an adequate riposte to criticism. If you're doing a crap job, you're doing a crap job, the amount of effort involved is immaterial.

It appears it's a pervading line on Council, as if they are all virtuous altruistic members of our profession being Councillors out of the goodness of their hearts. Some may well be (and this isn't aimed at Claire - I've no idea of her record or involvement). This seems to imbue them with a sense of outrage and hurt if they are criticised, as if any criticism should be tempered because they are "volunteers doing their best" - almost like a child at a Nativity Play - conveniently forgetting they are doing something that is rightly scrutinised by the profession.

RE: Do you earn less?

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:46:51 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]for such personal criticism.[/quote]

RE: Do you earn less?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:05:48 GMT

I didn't ask for leniency. I said things have already been discussed in considerable detail. And anyway, as I said earlier, a forum like this is a wholly inappropriate place for such personal criticism.

RE: Do you earn less?

J G Wray — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:55:24 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Lastly, I do think we should take Clare out of this now. Her situation has been pretty thoroughly dissected.[/quote]

Hmmmm, when the RCVS dissects a complaint made against you, as a professional person, can a third party ask for leniency?

It's a rhetorical question, because a complaint made to RCVS and their process is far more threatening and isn't the same thing at all.

RE: Do you earn less?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 08:07:40 GMT

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]As you will recall from our long telephone call I was dis-inclined to do so publicly because as I explained to you whilst I was incorrect that Clare was employed by CVS, the main substance of my accusation (that her DOI's were incorrect in a serious and important manner) was correct and that whilst apologising to her in public might seem like the correct thing to do, it would inevitably lead to further exposure of what both Clare and I considered to be a series error, and cause further upset to Clare.[/quote]

That differs from my memory of our conversation.

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with your approach that considers whether DOI's are important after the fact[/quote]

I never said that was my approach and nor is it. In this case, it is necessarily after the fact, because you brought it up after the fact!

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]Whilst it may seem that I am unfairly picking on Clare[/quote]

My concern was not that you 'picked on' Clare, but that you did it unfairly. Firstly, you lied about her. Secondly, by being so vague in your accusation ('ongoing financial relationship with a corporate'), you effectively exaggerated her 'crime'. As I said, ongoing financial relationship could mean anything. It could mean that she was a paid consultant, that she owned shares, that she had some other relationship that would mean she would benefit personally if the outcome of the Working Party took one direction or another. She did not. She simply rented premises on a fixed term. I felt it was very important to clarify this point.

Anyway, thank you, sincerely, for apologising.

Lastly, I do think we should take Clare out of this now. Her situation has been pretty thoroughly dissected. Can we keep the discussion to the broader issues you raise, which are important, without pointing the finger at individuals?

RE: Do you earn less?

J G Wray — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:34:49 GMT

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]Whilst it may seem that I am unfairly picking on Clare the truth is that my wider point is that the college generally does a poor job of governing us.[/quote]

Quite

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]Whilst you might think these are trivial matters (not acknowledging a charity that they work for, or a company they are director of etc) I take the view that these are 'markers' for a bigger malaise of 'do as we say, not as we do'.[/quote]

Quite

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]The college are quick to chase VS for trivial error's but don't like it when you point out their mistakes. [/quote]

Quite

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]Interestingly Clare described the college to me (in private) as 'incredibly inflexible' and any change was 'difficult and tortuously slow'.[/quote]

Perhaps someone should more clearly articulate to RCVS that Shift Happens in the Real World.

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]I have no reason to doubt her description but I don't recall these terms being in the minutes of the Standards Committee, and only wish that councillors would blow the whistle at the time they are in office, but I'm afraid that within the echo chamber of the Horseferry Road they keep telling themselves they are doing a good job. [/quote]

Quite

[quote user="Alastair Welch"]Finally, you can suspend my account if you wish but I don't feel disinhibited of criticism of either the college or specific councillors or the staff with such a threat. [/quote]

Definition of tolerance

the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.

It works both ways

RE: Do you earn less?

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:02:34 GMT

Alistair, in my private email to you I said that when I joined council in 2008 I found the college inflexible and found effecting change slow. I think many organisations with large committees are the same and also that the college changed while I was there and continued to change in the years since I left.

I am aware that having been elected I should also expect to be judged and I respect your right to express your opinion about my actions when in office and about the RCVS here on this forum. I only ever expected you to apologise for inaccuracies and you have.

Different people have different ways of working on organisations and my preference is to work with people cooperatively to effect change rather than acting confrontationally or aggressively. It does not mean that I tolerate injustice or maintain the status quo if I do not agree with it but a room full of whistle blowing zealots may achieve less than those willing to debate with courtesy. Not every word or utterance is minuted in minute detail and I did the best I could at the time as do other council members. They are also fallible human beings like me who make mistakes and when you kick them they feel pain. I feel I have now had a really good public kicking in a public space I care about and it has certainly hurt.

As I said to you in my private email I think you should stand for council because you feel so strongly that your college is not as it should be.With the benefit of hindsight I could have done some things better but at least I stuck my head over the parapet.

RE: Do you earn less?

Alastair Welch — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:12:34 GMT

Arlo,

As it happens I did apologise to Clare in private a while before you posted. As you will recall from our long telephone call I was dis-inclined to do so publicly because as I explained to you whilst I was incorrect that Clare was employed by CVS, the main substance of my accusation (that her DOI's were incorrect in a serious and important manner) was correct and that whilst apologising to her in public might seem like the correct thing to do, it would inevitably lead to further exposure of what both Clare and I considered to be a series error, and cause further upset to Clare. I have considered for a while as to whether to post further on this topic or not, but as both Clare and you have further contributed to this thread I feel somewhat somewhat less inhibited.

I am happy to publicly apologise to Clare for incorrectly stating that she was a CVS employee, however I make no apology for highlighting her incorrect DOI's, an error that I see as both important and serious. In truth Clare has accepted that this was a serious error (she offered to resign at the time from both her Chair of the Standards Committee and also from the Council itself). I guess that if a long-standing RCVS councillor and Chair of one of the standing committees makes and error so serious that they offer their resignation then I think it its the sort of thing that should have public exposure.

I do not think that incorrect DOI's are necessarily a resigning issue but I do think that they should be aired publicly. I did suggest this at the time to the CEO and Registrar but they thought it better to keep it quiet.

I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with your approach that considers whether DOI's are important after the fact: the whole idea of DOI's is that there is no need to weigh them in light of information later available, they should be correct at the time to prevent any later questioning. I don't view a rental agreement as trivial matter: commercial property is a solid investment over the last few years and it should have been disclosed at the time.

Whilst it may seem that I am unfairly picking on Clare the truth is that my wider point is that the college generally does a poor job of governing us. I will not name them but I know of at least two ex presidents of the college who served their presidential term with inaccurate DOI's. Whilst you might think these are trivial matters (not acknowledging a charity that they work for, or a company they are director of etc) I take the view that these are 'markers' for a bigger malaise of 'do as we say, not as we do'. The college are quick to chase VS for trivial error's but don't like it when you point out their mistakes. Interestingly Clare described the college to me (in private) as 'incredibly inflexible' and any change was 'difficult and tortuously slow'. I have no reason to doubt her description but I don't recall these terms being in the minutes of the Standards Committee, and only wish that councillors would blow the whistle at the time they are in office, but I'm afraid that within the echo chamber of the Horseferry Road they keep telling themselves they are doing a good job.

Finally, you can suspend my account if you wish but I don't feel disinhibited of criticism of either the college or specific councillors or the staff with such a threat.

Alastair Welch

RE: Do you earn less?

Cool — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:55:07 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

There is a simple economic fact at play here - there is a free market in vet jobs in UK and as long as there is a relatively free supply of graduates, whether from the many hundreds of home-produced folk or the apparently endless supply of economic migrants from Europe and elsewhere, then salaries will be low, continue downwards and "productivity" (the economic definition, nothing to do with individual effort) will remain low. The apparent constant shortage of vets is almost always with us - there are currently many more vets working in UK than ever before despite an animal population that remains reasonably constant over the years. Those who have a vested interest in training more graduates propagate the story that there is manpower shortage but that is a gross and misleading simplification. There are too many veterinary businesses occupying too many small, inefficient business spaces and staffed by too many support staff. From the vets' point of view, all that adds up to the interesting work being spread too thinly (reduced veterinary job satisfaction and reduced potential to invest in equipment and personal development); income reliant on low-cost work (selling flea and wormers and dog food); a high cost to the clients (who are paying for the premises, the support staff and skilled professionals doing retail sales work).

The low wages are inevitable with the current shape of the vet industry and producing/registering more vets is not the solution.

[/quote]

I totally agree with you Malcolm. It is a very simple economic scenario playing out before our very eyes.

RE: Do you earn less?

Chris Barker — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 20:58:01 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]RCVS would like to regulate our business[/quote]

Sadly, and I speak here as both a business owner AND an RCVS Councillor, I think this is true. The desire to do so was originally driven by those Councillors who had sat on the Preliminary Investigation Committee and regularly saw poor examples of veterinary practices appearing again and again amongst the complaints submitted. With the recent LRO, which has engineered a full separation of PIC from Council, this 'drive' may diminish.

The Practice Standards Scheme was the direct offspring of this desire - if the VSA does not give the RCVS the right to regulate practices, then invent a system that encourages practices to voluntarily sign up to a new layer of regulation... And many practices did.

The RCVS believes that its new Charter gives it greater freedom to extend its' regulation of the profession. Whether this freedom extends to the regulation of practices remains to be tested. Perhaps one benefit of corporatisation may be that it has given rise to groups with the financial clout to resist such intervention if it is judged to be unwarranted.

But with the proposal that the size of Council may shrink over the coming years (from >40 to the low 20's), it is vital that practitioners with an understanding of the financial compromises of first opinion practice, and the need to generate adequate profit, are adequately represented on Council

RE: Do you earn less?

J G Wray — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:38:36 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]Well, count me in as making the same mistake then[/quote]

This is something that was put to bed when Bob Partridge had full and frank discussions with Bradley Viner over BV's Directorships.

In essence Bob P didn't think BV was being entirely honest and BV thought he was.

It can be quite shocking if someone doesn't believe you are being honest and the flipside is that if someone sets out to solicit support from voters, it can be shocking for a voter if those who ask for support and get elected are perceived as coming up short, with what looks like casual or deliberate dishonesty or inexactitude.

In practice, it can be quite shocking if a client doesn't believe you are being honest and it is certainly shocking if a client isn't honest with you.

Probably just as well not to stamp feet and point out it's not fair whichever side you find yourself on.

RE: Do you earn less?

Jo Dyer — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:04:44 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Conclusion: She made an honest mistake.[/quote]

Well, count me in as making the same mistake then. I'm amazed that leasing a property to CVS constitutes a COI, oops! I am in exactly the same position as Clare and it never, ever occurred to me. I also rent out residential properties - better go and check the tenants aren't CEO of Pets at Home or something..... (Unlikely)

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"](I understand that in the past, perhaps even now, the DOI form is quite unspecific about what should be declared).[/quote]

Yup

RE: Do you earn less?

J G Wray — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:57:13 GMT

[quote user="Liz Barton"]I understand that the RCVS does not exist to regulate businesses, and its primary remit is to safeguard animal welfare and the public... [/quote]

Late to this thread.

RCVS would like to regulate our business

[quote user="Liz Barton"]I give an example; local to me you can have a splenectomy done for £1200 at an independent practice, £3500 at a corporate vet, or £3000 at a referral centre with a board certified SAS. This is not 'fair' on the clients when their animal is dying of an internal bleed and they have no option to shop around. [/quote]

To return to an older thread, "fairness" is an interesting concept and some may recall how well the profession scored in the Vet Futures survey, sponsored by RCVS in this respect. It's straightforward to check out and, I think, surprised RCVS.

Now, as for charges, then there may be a natural tension between a perception of "fairness" and the need for profit. Yup, there's the magic word. Try this definition of profit - Profit is Freedom

RE: Do you earn less?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 02:56:17 GMT

The Jackson Five? Jeepers Arlo, have mercy.

RE: Do you earn less?

Joyce Whitehead — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 20:12:58 GMT

Very well said Arlo, and I hope Clare continues to give us the benefit of her knowledge. I for one admire greatly the fact you managed to sit on RCVS council whilst you had so much else going on in your life!

RE: Do you earn less?

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:29:11 GMT

Thanks for the clear statements of the facts Arlo. In the words of Gloria Gaynor , I will survive

RE: Do you earn less?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:50:42 GMT

Earlier in this thread, Alastair Welch made some accusations against Clare Tapsfield-Wright which put her integrity in doubt. Essentially that whilst chairing the 24/7 Working Party, she failed to declare in her declaration of interests that she was an employee of CVS and that she had an 'ongoing relationship with a corporate entity'.

I’ve been in touch with both of them on the telephone, and this raises three very important issues about making public accusations of this sort:

A) Accuracy

It is simply untrue to say that Clare was an employee of CVS. She never was. Nor was there any further financial relationship relating to the sale of her practice after it was sold. It was a clean break. However, Clare DID rent her premises to CVS following the sale. It is important to state that this was on a fixed 5 year term. So there was no way that the rental could be affected by any outcome from the Working Party decision. And given that there are probably a million reasons a tenant may not renew five years down the line (and other takers if they did not renew), implausible to think it would have affected Clare’s impartiality.

Beyond that, it is also difficult to imagine how Clare could have influenced the outcome in favour of her tenant. Firstly, whilst she chaired the Working Party, decisions were jointly made with others.

Secondly, the out-of-hours horse had already bolted. It has been suggested the Working Party might have been able to restrict the ability of vets to farm out OOH. How this could have been achieved without legal challenge from an OOH provider is unclear.

And in any event, it is quite clear that the profession WANTS the ability to farm out OOH, for a better quality of life.

Thirdly, CVS was but one of many contributors to the Working Party (and, as it happens, did their own OOH at Clare's old practice and continue to do so now)

So, it is clear to me that this was a procedural mistake. Still, it’s all about appearances. Clare understood that and not only apologised at the time, but also offered to resign.

Conclusion: She made an honest mistake. We all do. But it is unfair to exaggerate her mistake to suggest she is anything other than a principled, honest person.

B) Duty of care to colleagues

It is ironic that Alastair, who is clearly and genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of his peers should not stop to consider the impact his accusations, made in front of a community of colleagues and friends, might have on Clare, a BSV (bog standard vet) like himself. It is also ironic that he hauls someone else over the coals for making a mistake, when his own allegations contain, er, mistakes.

As forum regulars will know, life has thrown some pretty challenging circumstances at Clare. And this IS a profession largely comprised of people who prize their integrity dearly. So it was a very upsetting accusation which had an big impact on someone who already has a pretty tough time of things.

My point: Words are very powerful. I can think of NO circumstances where a forum is the right place to make personal allegations, still less inaccurate or misleading ones. You can never know what else is going on in someone else’s life, or how your words are going to affect them.

The ONLY correct way to discuss or make an accusation of this nature is to pick up the damned telephone, or discuss face-to-face.

C) Bigger picture

There are two things here. Firstly what posting an accusation like that says to other users of the forum, and how it DOES deter others from getting involved in what can be a very useful resource.

Perhaps more importantly, what it says to anyone who is thinking of offering their services to the profession as a councillor. I mean really, why would you if there’s a sporting chance you’re going to be accused of being dishonest? Again, perhaps ironic if, by his accusations, Alastair makes it more likely that genuine, honest, hands-on practitioners are deterred from serving on Council.

In summary: Underneath Alastair’s personal accusations, there may be perfectly valid and important issues that DO need to be discussed. But in a forum like this, it is NEVER appropriate to do so in such a personal way. By all means discuss DOIs in general. Indeed, I think this thread raises the question of whether the RCVS failed in a duty of care to its own councillors to make sure they were or are properly guided to make sure their DOIs are correct and complete (I understand that in the past, perhaps even now, the DOI form is quite unspecific about what should be declared).

I am sorry that Alastair has not done the decent thing and apologised in this forum for his mistake about Clare’s employment, and for inflating ‘ongoing financial relationship’ from that of a landlord with a fixed term contract to something which could have been interpreted as rather more insidious. I thought he would, and the fact that he hasn’t has slightly reduced my confidence in human nature. Clare asked me not to suspend his account, so I will not. But if anyone does something like that again, I will.

Lastly, it would be, well, just wrong if someone who enjoys these forums for the ability they give them to keep in with the profession should be denied the opportunity because they think regulars will now be looking at her differently or distrustingly because of inaccurate accusations. So I do hope at least some of you might give Clare a quick show of support by liking this post, or sending her a PM, or replying.

Clare Tapsfield-Wright ... this one's for you :

www.youtube.com/watch

RE: Do you earn less?

David Mills — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:53:36 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

There was an article in one of the papers over the weekend (can't remember which) on pet insurance. One comment which appeared to be without a hint of irony was that 'taking your pet to the vet can cost as much as calling a plumber out'! That seems to sum up the layman's appreciation of the difference in education, training, investment in property/equipment and skills sets. Not.

Then the opposite: I had occasion to send a cycling jacket back (that I'd won for 'letter of the month' in a cycling magazine) because it was too small, to swap for a larger size. Being as under the circumstances the company which distributed it had no responsibility to do this for free I was happily surprised when the woman in customer service said she'd arrange collection and delivery of the replacement FOC because she'd realised from the address I was a vet and she thought vets did a wonderful job.

[/quote]

Was it the only letter that month?

RE: Do you earn less?

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 11:10:33 GMT

RE: Do you earn less?

Anthony Todd — Sat, 16 Sep 2017 21:11:50 GMT

Martin, thank you for giving us your personal and accurate information.

I have a strong feeling that you will soon be earning a lot more and probably working for yourself.....

RE: Do you earn less?

Martin Hamilton — Sat, 16 Sep 2017 19:58:14 GMT

Just joining this thread as I've been watching but not said anything.

I make far less than this, but then again I'm only a recent graduate, so wouldn't expect to be near £37k. Though I do know the wages of my colleagues (minus the partners), and only one vet is above that "average" figure, and they've been graduated for 25+ years. We have the following distribution pre tax:

New grad - £28k - 25 days holiday p.a.
3 recent grads - £28k-£30k (latter for the one graduated for 3 years) - 25 days holiday p.a.
10yr experience - £36k - 28 days holiday p.a.
25yr experience - £40k (though they may also have a production bonus) - 40 days holiday p.a.
Partner - ??? - but considering the cars and multiple homes abroad and in the UK, I don't think they're doing too badly

Located in Yorkshire - I realise these are low, but it's very disheartening to see that as a vet I earn less than the UK average salary, when I have 5 years of university education, and get "taxed" 9% more in the form of student debt repayments. It's also interesting to see that the value of this wage has decreased by 9% when inflation is taken into account, meaning that overall I am 10% + worse off than a new grad on the same wage in 2010 thanks to changes in student loan repayments in 2011-2012.

Thankful to be moving soon and getting this job behind me!

RE: Do you earn less?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 16 Sep 2017 13:47:09 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Has anyone ever not paid a tradesman in cash?[/quote]

I have never ever paid a tradesman in cash.