Council staff on £58,000 to be named in war on waste
08 February 2011, 01:43 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Council staff on £58,000 to be named in war on waste
Interesting article in the Telegraph.
Here's a sample:
Here's a sample:
According to an analysis of council accounts, in 1997 when Labour came to power the average local authority employed just seven people earning more than £50,000 a year. By 2008 this had risen to 81 people per council. Local authorities employing the most middle managers include Birmingham, Hampshire and Essex councils.
There are thought to be 15,388 people working in local councils earning more than £60,000 a year – and several thousand more earning between £58,000 and £60,000. Over the past decade, the number of council middle managers has risen eleven-fold – compared with a three-fold rise in the number of equivalent private sector earners.
Official figures show that council spending on middle managers is more than £2.4billion – a rise of more than 20 per cent in the last three years.
08 February 2011, 08:40 AM
#3
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was on the news this morning, some councils are raising the costs of funerals by about 25% 
Councils seem to charge more and more for less and less.
All these increases must be just to pay council staff wages
Councils seem to charge more and more for less and less.
All these increases must be just to pay council staff wages
08 February 2011, 08:49 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
The managers have to preserve their empires thus they put up prices (funerals, car parking etc) so they can keep the "same level of service". In other words so they can keep on the local government gravy train!
There should be an onus on councils and government to do all they can to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the electorate. This should be cast in stone and anyone needing to increase budgets should have to get an electoral mandate for it. Thus election manifestos would have to be seen through when in office.
Dave
There should be an onus on councils and government to do all they can to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the electorate. This should be cast in stone and anyone needing to increase budgets should have to get an electoral mandate for it. Thus election manifestos would have to be seen through when in office.
Dave
08 February 2011, 09:16 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
I know it's probably a nonsense but whenever the wife and I meet for lunch, all the restaurants in town are full of council staff. They always seem to be eating out - not grabbing a sarnie or whatever. Thats a difference of say £8 a day compared to maybe £3.
A nonsense it probably is but it makes you think they must be earning enough to be able to eat out every lunchtime.
I've also seen local council middle management pension funds and well in excess of £500K is common. They are very highly paid compared to others in the area (an area that was considered "poverty" level up until very recently)
A nonsense it probably is but it makes you think they must be earning enough to be able to eat out every lunchtime.
I've also seen local council middle management pension funds and well in excess of £500K is common. They are very highly paid compared to others in the area (an area that was considered "poverty" level up until very recently)
08 February 2011, 09:19 AM
#7
Surrey CC already lists the number of workers on high salaries (forget the salary they started at but it was around £35k). Though it doesn't provide names.
I was surprised at the number of people on high wages over £100k, employed by the council, including some in the £300k area.
I was surprised at the number of people on high wages over £100k, employed by the council, including some in the £300k area.
Trending Topics
08 February 2011, 11:02 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The managers have to preserve their empires thus they put up prices (funerals, car parking etc) so they can keep the "same level of service". In other words so they can keep on the local government gravy train!
There should be an onus on councils and government to do all they can to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the electorate. This should be cast in stone and anyone needing to increase budgets should have to get an electoral mandate for it. Thus election manifestos would have to be seen through when in office.
Dave
There should be an onus on councils and government to do all they can to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the electorate. This should be cast in stone and anyone needing to increase budgets should have to get an electoral mandate for it. Thus election manifestos would have to be seen through when in office.
Dave
08 February 2011, 01:08 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just the same as the NHS under Labour.
Labour invested Billions more, but where did most of it go?
They gave Consultants and GP's new contracts with HUGE pay rises. Some GP's are now on £250,000 a year. Plus all the new managers that were hired. My mates wife is a nurse, and has a manager, who has a manager, who has a manager, etc.
Labour invested Billions more, but where did most of it go?
They gave Consultants and GP's new contracts with HUGE pay rises. Some GP's are now on £250,000 a year. Plus all the new managers that were hired. My mates wife is a nurse, and has a manager, who has a manager, who has a manager, etc.
08 February 2011, 01:35 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 February 2011, 02:17 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The managers have to preserve their empires thus they put up prices (funerals, car parking etc) so they can keep the "same level of service". In other words so they can keep on the local government gravy train!
There should be an onus on councils and government to do all they can to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the electorate. This should be cast in stone and anyone needing to increase budgets should have to get an electoral mandate for it. Thus election manifestos would have to be seen through when in office.
Dave
There should be an onus on councils and government to do all they can to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the electorate. This should be cast in stone and anyone needing to increase budgets should have to get an electoral mandate for it. Thus election manifestos would have to be seen through when in office.
Dave
Les
08 February 2011, 02:34 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 February 2011, 02:37 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's insane for a council to employ people on that money. A council is by nature boring and mediocre....it just needs boring and grey people to run it to provide boring services....not some 'talented' high-flyers - which these people probably aren't anyway but they can always rationalise themselves as being to justify the pay.
08 February 2011, 03:24 PM
#16
If someone is doing the same job year after year then they should only be getting inflationary pay rises. They should only get above inflation if they get better at their job, so can take on more work in the same time or otherwise save money for their employer. Unfortunately this isn't how the public sector works, staff get pay rises for seniority even though they produce no more value for it - so there is a steady drift upwards in costs.
08 February 2011, 03:30 PM
#17
I remember listening to an interview with some guy who had been brought in to head up a council somewhere (I forget where). He said that the first thing he did was to insist that any new jobs had to be signed off by him before being advertised. Prior to this even relatively junior managers could create and staff new roles, often with very little justification.
I have to say I was stunned by this. Most private sector companies wouldn't dream of allowing junior management to create new jobs with sign-off on the job description and budget from very senior levels of management. In my company this goes up to GM level, which is probably equivalent to a county council CEO level in terms of total staffing and budget.
I have to say I was stunned by this. Most private sector companies wouldn't dream of allowing junior management to create new jobs with sign-off on the job description and budget from very senior levels of management. In my company this goes up to GM level, which is probably equivalent to a county council CEO level in terms of total staffing and budget.
08 February 2011, 06:08 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Come on, be serious, £58,000 is hardly a high wage - is it now? 
Yes, maybe £150,000 is high - but not amazingly so ... I work with contractors earning far more for 4 days a week!
So, let's get real ................... attack the Bankers on £MILLIONS!
Yes, maybe £150,000 is high - but not amazingly so ... I work with contractors earning far more for 4 days a week!
So, let's get real ................... attack the Bankers on £MILLIONS!
08 February 2011, 06:48 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point is anyway not how much they earn per se ,but the fact that there are so many staff in those positions.
08 February 2011, 06:59 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
The public sector is out of control now. HMRC in particular needs a hell of a shake up. I know this is about councils, but how can these muppets complain about the economy when they seem to do their best to put obstacles in front of something as simple as making a living?
Jobs for the boys. Surprised they haven't got folk digging ditches and filling them back in again to boost growth to be honest. Utter c*nts.
Jobs for the boys. Surprised they haven't got folk digging ditches and filling them back in again to boost growth to be honest. Utter c*nts.
08 February 2011, 07:03 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Well, yes, I didn't say they were worth it - just that £58,000 a year is nothing to get excited about is it really?
I should think that anyone who can afford to run a Scoobie will be on at least that level of remuneration ... so, I'm pretty safe posting the truth here.
I should think that anyone who can afford to run a Scoobie will be on at least that level of remuneration ... so, I'm pretty safe posting the truth here.
08 February 2011, 07:21 PM
#24
I am with Pete with this, shock horror !
It isnt a bloated, insane pay packet, it is a good salary and one that perhaps some well qualified, dillent and proffessional council empoyees deserve because they bring a certain amount of benefit to the community they serve.
Dont just have a witch hunt based on salary, there were some on that that earned every penny and deserved more (not many, granted), some that earnt nothing but deserved that much and a lot that earnt a middling ammount that were ****ing useless, went off sick all the time, did sod all, served no purpose, moaned about it and just turned up.
People should be able to earn decent salaries, as Pete says, focus on bankers, footballers, non domiciled tax evaders, benefits cheats and anyone else that just lives in a pay no tax, cash economy.
It isnt a bloated, insane pay packet, it is a good salary and one that perhaps some well qualified, dillent and proffessional council empoyees deserve because they bring a certain amount of benefit to the community they serve.
Dont just have a witch hunt based on salary, there were some on that that earned every penny and deserved more (not many, granted), some that earnt nothing but deserved that much and a lot that earnt a middling ammount that were ****ing useless, went off sick all the time, did sod all, served no purpose, moaned about it and just turned up.
People should be able to earn decent salaries, as Pete says, focus on bankers, footballers, non domiciled tax evaders, benefits cheats and anyone else that just lives in a pay no tax, cash economy.
08 February 2011, 08:25 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with Pete with this, shock horror !
It isnt a bloated, insane pay packet, it is a good salary and one that perhaps some well qualified, dillent and proffessional council empoyees deserve because they bring a certain amount of benefit to the community they serve.
Dont just have a witch hunt based on salary, there were some on that that earned every penny and deserved more (not many, granted), some that earnt nothing but deserved that much and a lot that earnt a middling ammount that were ****ing useless, went off sick all the time, did sod all, served no purpose, moaned about it and just turned up.
People should be able to earn decent salaries, as Pete says, focus on bankers, footballers, non domiciled tax evaders, benefits cheats and anyone else that just lives in a pay no tax, cash economy.
It isnt a bloated, insane pay packet, it is a good salary and one that perhaps some well qualified, dillent and proffessional council empoyees deserve because they bring a certain amount of benefit to the community they serve.
Dont just have a witch hunt based on salary, there were some on that that earned every penny and deserved more (not many, granted), some that earnt nothing but deserved that much and a lot that earnt a middling ammount that were ****ing useless, went off sick all the time, did sod all, served no purpose, moaned about it and just turned up.
People should be able to earn decent salaries, as Pete says, focus on bankers, footballers, non domiciled tax evaders, benefits cheats and anyone else that just lives in a pay no tax, cash economy.
08 February 2011, 08:35 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However I have no problem with thus as high earners pay high tax, including bankers. The guy who will get a 9 million bonus will pay 4.5 million tax.....I'd be pretty happy with that. If the bank don't pay it.....the country doesn't earn.
08 February 2011, 08:57 PM
#27
Yep, that's exactly the point. Like the article said, compared with only a three fold increase in the private sector during the same period. Conclusive proof if it was ever needed of the massive bureaucratization of the country under nu-Labour.
08 February 2011, 09:13 PM
#28
I am with Pete with this, shock horror !
It isnt a bloated, insane pay packet, it is a good salary and one that perhaps some well qualified, dillent and proffessional council empoyees deserve because they bring a certain amount of benefit to the community they serve.
Dont just have a witch hunt based on salary, there were some on that that earned every penny and deserved more (not many, granted), some that earnt nothing but deserved that much and a lot that earnt a middling ammount that were ****ing useless, went off sick all the time, did sod all, served no purpose, moaned about it and just turned up.
People should be able to earn decent salaries, as Pete says, focus on bankers, footballers, non domiciled tax evaders, benefits cheats and anyone else that just lives in a pay no tax, cash economy.
It isnt a bloated, insane pay packet, it is a good salary and one that perhaps some well qualified, dillent and proffessional council empoyees deserve because they bring a certain amount of benefit to the community they serve.
Dont just have a witch hunt based on salary, there were some on that that earned every penny and deserved more (not many, granted), some that earnt nothing but deserved that much and a lot that earnt a middling ammount that were ****ing useless, went off sick all the time, did sod all, served no purpose, moaned about it and just turned up.
People should be able to earn decent salaries, as Pete says, focus on bankers, footballers, non domiciled tax evaders, benefits cheats and anyone else that just lives in a pay no tax, cash economy.
Also, don't get fixated on £58K - I think you will be shocked by the number of council employees earning more than the PM when the salaries get published, especially when you read the woolly job descriptions.
08 February 2011, 09:17 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a great idea can we roll this out to all companies ASAP, i mean i pay for goods in Sainsbury's so pay the wages of the staff so i should know who earns 58K and then that should apply to any company that supplies government contracts as that is paid for by Tax payers money and what about banks, there profits are made out of me so i should have the right to know.
In fact lets just name and shame everyone who has managed to get a job that pays 58K
I mean if it is ok for some person who has worked in the council for 30 years and climbed up the ladder to earn 58k to have their private income published it must be ok to publish anyones!
In fact lets just name and shame everyone who has managed to get a job that pays 58K
I mean if it is ok for some person who has worked in the council for 30 years and climbed up the ladder to earn 58k to have their private income published it must be ok to publish anyones!
08 February 2011, 09:24 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scud8 then just have all job titles published but you cant tell much by a JD mine have never covered my range of duties or shown how hard i worked either in the private or public sector.
The solution is for people to decide what services they dont want and then they can just cut those jobs.
Why not just let people pay private companies to empty the bins, private companies already do it for the council so just cut out the management cost of council middle men and that is an easy saving and soon private companies will run schools so let people pay direct to the school they want and not have to pay it to the government with all the costs of a middle man
The solution is for people to decide what services they dont want and then they can just cut those jobs.
Why not just let people pay private companies to empty the bins, private companies already do it for the council so just cut out the management cost of council middle men and that is an easy saving and soon private companies will run schools so let people pay direct to the school they want and not have to pay it to the government with all the costs of a middle man