Eric Pickles spoke at Tory Party conference today about the fact that council chief executives should take a pay cut in the current financial climate, to ensure that they can look their workers straight in the face and share their pain. This would be a good message were it not for the fact the the Tories seem more willing than any other party to lavish large pay rises on to chief executives of Tory councils.
The leaders of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex County Councils, all Tory run, each earn more than £200,000 a year. The leader of Suffolk County Council, Andrea Hill earns £220,000 a year – more than the Prime Minister. Her salary is 18 per cent higher than two years ago.
But looking below the level of Chief Executives, Tory councils seem quite happy to splash taxpayers cash on large remuneration packages. Take the £182,000 for a council "head of communications", or Spin Doctor, as the Tory supporting Daily Mail described her role.
Perhaps though Mr Pickles own Tories in Brentwood and on Essex County Council could answer the question why their Chief Executive, who shares the roles of overseeing both these councils, is the fourth highest paid chief exec in the country ?
The answer given by the Tories when pressed on matters regarding high pay for officers in Tory run councils is that "you have to pay that rate because they save the council money through the efficiencies they make". The question is for Mr Pickles, is he calling these Tories liars when they make such statements ? For if it is, isn't it a false economy ?
Personally I cannot see why any chief exec should earn more than the Prime Minister.
Showing posts with label pay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pay. Show all posts
11/13/2009
Forget Performance Related Pay in the MOD, all Performance Related Pay Is Flawed Anyway
The was a lot of fuss yesterday about Performance Related Pay (PRP) in the Ministry of Defence yesterday, but little discussion of the reason it was introduced and the very fact that virtually all PRP is flawed.
Looking in to the details of the MOD PRP system, it appears that staff were effectively robbed of the pay increase they might have expected in the past with the promise of a performance based system that was designed not improve performance but instead, like all PRP system, was designed to save money.
When I worked at worked at Norwich Union in a team of 10 people, we were sold the idea of PRP being introduced that would "reward people for their efforts". When you looked at the system itself, it was nothing of the sort.
Of the ten people in a team, only a maximum of two could receive the top rating of "1", a further two could receive a "2" and three people could receive a "3", meaning that three people had to fight it out to get the remaining two "4 ratings, leaving one more person to get "5". Put simply, you were not and could not be rated on your performance because you were forced in to bands. if everyone in the team did the same work and every worked to the best of the abilities, one of those outstanding people would still have received the lowest rating of "5" whilst his or her colleagues, doing exactly the same work to the same standard could receive the top rating of "1".
In short, PRP is not a means of rewarding people for the work they have done. It is a means of paying people different salaries for doing the same job.
I know of a Council, for example, that allows its HR department to choose which council department should receive the highest "one off" performance bonus each year and, surprise surprise, the HR department wins the award almost every year.
So let's not criticise staff in the MOD for getting PRP. Let's castigate those morons who thought PRP should be introduced in the first place.
7/05/2009
Public Sector Pay - How much does Steve Bundred (the head of the Audit Commission) get paid ?
The head of the Audit Commission is apparently urging the government to impose a public sector pay freeze this year. Whilst I can see the logical arguments in favour of this (even as a public sector worker), I do not accept his justification for making this statement.
Apparently he feels that the health and education sectors are ripe for public sector pay freezes because he felt that public sector workers had "done well" in the past 10 years and would "tolerate" modest reductions.
Now if this were true, I would be even happier. However my last four pay rises have all been less than inflation increases, and the current three year pay deal (which we have only had one year of) would, if the government had met its inflation targets, have ensured another two years of less than inflation rises.
Now by a strange quirk, the government decision to impose an anticipated less than inflation deal on teachers has backfired and it might actually mean a genuine pay rise because inflation has dropped below the 2.35% that teachers were due to get in September, the head of the Audit Commission feels that he can spout off about how well teachers have done.
As I said, I cannot argue with the logic of pay restraint at this time, but please don't be fooled by this fool Steve Bundred telling people that teachers have "never had it so good", because if he failed to understand that teachers have had years of real terms pay cuts, he really cannot be trusted to be telling the truth on anything else.
The daft thing is that according to the Audit Commission's own press releases, they paid their staff a 4.9% increase this year because of the high level of inflation. Perhaps they should note that when inflation rocketed last year, teachers got 2.4%. So how can they pay 4.9% to their staff (whilst also consolidating bonuses in to pay levels, thus increasing management salaries even further) but demand restraint for teachers and nurses ?
Apparently he feels that the health and education sectors are ripe for public sector pay freezes because he felt that public sector workers had "done well" in the past 10 years and would "tolerate" modest reductions.
Now if this were true, I would be even happier. However my last four pay rises have all been less than inflation increases, and the current three year pay deal (which we have only had one year of) would, if the government had met its inflation targets, have ensured another two years of less than inflation rises.
Now by a strange quirk, the government decision to impose an anticipated less than inflation deal on teachers has backfired and it might actually mean a genuine pay rise because inflation has dropped below the 2.35% that teachers were due to get in September, the head of the Audit Commission feels that he can spout off about how well teachers have done.
As I said, I cannot argue with the logic of pay restraint at this time, but please don't be fooled by this fool Steve Bundred telling people that teachers have "never had it so good", because if he failed to understand that teachers have had years of real terms pay cuts, he really cannot be trusted to be telling the truth on anything else.
The daft thing is that according to the Audit Commission's own press releases, they paid their staff a 4.9% increase this year because of the high level of inflation. Perhaps they should note that when inflation rocketed last year, teachers got 2.4%. So how can they pay 4.9% to their staff (whilst also consolidating bonuses in to pay levels, thus increasing management salaries even further) but demand restraint for teachers and nurses ?
8/01/2008
Another government lie about teachers pay
The Government has been forced to drop adverts which implied newly qualified teachers could earn £34,000 a year when it was pointed out by the relevant authorities that this figure is wrong.
The government believes that the best way to get people in to teaching is to tell them what they could earn after ten years and with added responsibility points rather than being honest about starting pay. It's like suggesting all MP's earn the same as the Prime Minister.
Of course the government are not averse to telling regular lies about teacher pay, they've done it already once this year and compounded their obsession with not telling the truth by failing to honour the pay agreement that said teachers pay would be reviewed if inflation reached 3%. When it did reach 3% last year they simply ignored this promise.
The truth is the problem with this government is not Gordon Brown. The problem is that it is addicted to telling lies.
The government believes that the best way to get people in to teaching is to tell them what they could earn after ten years and with added responsibility points rather than being honest about starting pay. It's like suggesting all MP's earn the same as the Prime Minister.
Of course the government are not averse to telling regular lies about teacher pay, they've done it already once this year and compounded their obsession with not telling the truth by failing to honour the pay agreement that said teachers pay would be reviewed if inflation reached 3%. When it did reach 3% last year they simply ignored this promise.
The truth is the problem with this government is not Gordon Brown. The problem is that it is addicted to telling lies.
1/15/2008
The Police Federation should wise up before making stupid comments
The Police Federation are apparently furious that teachers are to be offered a pay rise of 2.45%, with 2.3% in the two years after.
But hang on, didn't the police get 1.9% this year when teachers got just 1.8% (2.5% over 18 months). So let's get this right. The police got a bigger pay rise than teachers and they are complaining.
The Police Federation do their cause no good by spouting off like this.
An interesting aside to this is how the government are "spinning" the teachers pay deal as 2.45%, when in fact, if you take all three years in to account it is actual 2.35%. I know it is only 0.1%, but it seems the government cannot help themselves.
But hang on, didn't the police get 1.9% this year when teachers got just 1.8% (2.5% over 18 months). So let's get this right. The police got a bigger pay rise than teachers and they are complaining.
The Police Federation do their cause no good by spouting off like this.
An interesting aside to this is how the government are "spinning" the teachers pay deal as 2.45%, when in fact, if you take all three years in to account it is actual 2.35%. I know it is only 0.1%, but it seems the government cannot help themselves.
12/12/2007
If you sign away your right to strike to get bigger pay rises you sell your soul
I have a lot of sympathy for the police over their anger at the government refusing to backdate a their pay increase, as promised.
As a teacher I got only 2.5% over 18 months which equates to a 1.8% per annum increase (0.1% less than the police), whilst the government promised a pay review if inflation reached 3%, which it did, and the government again broke its promise on that too. So I know what it is like.
The problem I have though is some police officers are now saying, on the first occasion that they have not received a better pay deal than the rest of the public sector, they want the right to strike. I am a member of a union and I support people's right to strike. However, I object to people receiving good pay deals every year in return for having an agreement not to strike, then threatening to tear up this agreement. Other public sector workers have received equally derisory pay increased but there has been no clamour to strike, and nor should there be.
At the moment everyone is having to tighten their belts a bit. The economy is not flushed with cash, the government is not awash with the billions it had ten years ago whilst the housing market is precarious and their are real credit fears. In short, everyone is having to be more cautious about things. I am not fan of the government breaking its promises over pay, indeed, it is disgusting that they have broken any pay promise. But anyone going on strike at the moment over this is likely to incur the wrath of the general public, and in turn lose a lot of sympathy.
I remember well a few years ago when I worked for Norwich Union that bosses there balloted mid level managers in the company to persuade them to leave the union and join the Senior Staff Consultative Forum (SSCF), or the chocolate fireguard as it became known to more junior staff. In return for leaving the union and signing away their rights to be members of the proper trade union, they were offered inflation + pay rises, whilst the rest of us lower staff were given inflation only rises. Happy days for senior staff then ? No. The next year Norwich Union had a major cull of mid level managers, and with no union to speak on their behalf, nobody payed the slightest attention to the SSCF.
And therein lies the police problem. They signed away their right to strike in return for pay rises that were better than everyone else, but lost the ultimate power to get the best deal for themselves. Now by wanting to strike when they have been used so many times to help "break" strikes, they will be seen as hypocrites. I cannot blame individual officers, but the Police Federation itself looks very silly and selfish at the moment.
As a teacher I got only 2.5% over 18 months which equates to a 1.8% per annum increase (0.1% less than the police), whilst the government promised a pay review if inflation reached 3%, which it did, and the government again broke its promise on that too. So I know what it is like.
The problem I have though is some police officers are now saying, on the first occasion that they have not received a better pay deal than the rest of the public sector, they want the right to strike. I am a member of a union and I support people's right to strike. However, I object to people receiving good pay deals every year in return for having an agreement not to strike, then threatening to tear up this agreement. Other public sector workers have received equally derisory pay increased but there has been no clamour to strike, and nor should there be.
At the moment everyone is having to tighten their belts a bit. The economy is not flushed with cash, the government is not awash with the billions it had ten years ago whilst the housing market is precarious and their are real credit fears. In short, everyone is having to be more cautious about things. I am not fan of the government breaking its promises over pay, indeed, it is disgusting that they have broken any pay promise. But anyone going on strike at the moment over this is likely to incur the wrath of the general public, and in turn lose a lot of sympathy.
I remember well a few years ago when I worked for Norwich Union that bosses there balloted mid level managers in the company to persuade them to leave the union and join the Senior Staff Consultative Forum (SSCF), or the chocolate fireguard as it became known to more junior staff. In return for leaving the union and signing away their rights to be members of the proper trade union, they were offered inflation + pay rises, whilst the rest of us lower staff were given inflation only rises. Happy days for senior staff then ? No. The next year Norwich Union had a major cull of mid level managers, and with no union to speak on their behalf, nobody payed the slightest attention to the SSCF.
And therein lies the police problem. They signed away their right to strike in return for pay rises that were better than everyone else, but lost the ultimate power to get the best deal for themselves. Now by wanting to strike when they have been used so many times to help "break" strikes, they will be seen as hypocrites. I cannot blame individual officers, but the Police Federation itself looks very silly and selfish at the moment.
12/07/2007
Why is it when the police are treated like teachers are over pay it is suddenly a disgrace ?
Don't get me wrong before I start, it is a disgrace that police have not been promised the backdating of their salary increases, but let us not forget, that teachers and many other professions were also given 18 month pay increases meaning that the 2.5% increase that was announced equated to 1.8% if you took it as an annual pay rise.
The difference is that the police were promised a backdating whilst teachers were not. However, the government did promise teachers that the pay review body could re-examining the teachers pay deal if inflation hit 3%. Despite their promise, the government showed it's word was of as much value as a chocolate teapot when they reneged on this promise to teachers and refused to allow the teachers pay review body to re-examine the pay settlement for teachers.
What does the way the government treat public service workers tell us about them as a government ? It tell us all that they cannot be trusted and they tell lies.
The difference is that the police were promised a backdating whilst teachers were not. However, the government did promise teachers that the pay review body could re-examining the teachers pay deal if inflation hit 3%. Despite their promise, the government showed it's word was of as much value as a chocolate teapot when they reneged on this promise to teachers and refused to allow the teachers pay review body to re-examine the pay settlement for teachers.
What does the way the government treat public service workers tell us about them as a government ? It tell us all that they cannot be trusted and they tell lies.
11/18/2006
Equal pay - Something else the government won't fund for local councils
Council tax could rise to cover the costs of bringing women's pay up to the levels men earn, according to the LGE (local government employers) and reported on the BBC today.
No doubt people will seek to blame their local councils when council tax goes up, but this is another example of central government making a decision which affects local government, but then local government foots the bill.
Don't get me wrong, I support equal pay (I have to say that, my wife works in local government and she would kill me if I didn't say it !), however, with local government expected to making efficiency saving under the Gershon rules, this is going to result in more cuts to front line services as the government has again threatened to cap councils who go over 5%.
Isn't it about time government stopped letting local councils take the rap for their decisions ?
No doubt people will seek to blame their local councils when council tax goes up, but this is another example of central government making a decision which affects local government, but then local government foots the bill.
Don't get me wrong, I support equal pay (I have to say that, my wife works in local government and she would kill me if I didn't say it !), however, with local government expected to making efficiency saving under the Gershon rules, this is going to result in more cuts to front line services as the government has again threatened to cap councils who go over 5%.
Isn't it about time government stopped letting local councils take the rap for their decisions ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)