Today's most viewed
Council wages cut
 |
| Simon Wiles |
NEARLY 1,000 employees at City of York Council are set to have their wages cut, under a shake-up of the authority's pay structure.
Some 5,600 workers are awaiting the outcome of a landmark review into pay at the council, due to be completed within the next fortnight.
The Press understands about 930 employees - one-in-six of the authority's staff - are likely to face a pay cut. However, the majority will enjoy a pay rise either immediately or gradually.
Most of those who lose out are likely to face a cut of a few per cent, but similar job evaluation processes elsewhere in the country have seen some workers' salaries cut by thousands of pounds.
Earlier this month, a couple who work for Plymouth City Council told their local paper they may have to leave their jobs and their home, after losing £7,500 between them. Other workers have reportedly lost up to £8,000.
Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers' Alliance, today said there should be no pay increases for middle management roles, which he said were already often over-paid, and he accused councils of bringing the situation on themselves through years of inaction.
He said: "The fact that this is having to come as a sudden jump for a lot of people means some people see a sizeable and unexpected amount of their salary disappear, but for others it will be suddenly added on.
"It shows what should have been happening year on year. Re-grading has obviously not happened. They councils have not been keeping track of people's performance and how money is distributed.
"It shows they have not paid sufficient attention in years gone by, and so they're heading for trouble now, as there is a risk of people being seriously disrupted."
Those who do lose money in York will have the blow cushioned or staggered, so they do not lose thousands in one go.
Simon Wiles, director of resources at the council, said the job evaluation process was "progressing well" with unions and managers working together.
He said: "Both the unions and managers are examining and evaluating a model at present, with legal and financial reviews taking place.
"We are also checking the model for accuracy and doing quality checks. It is envisaged that a pay structure and model will be agreed that can be circulated to staff in about two weeks.
"This will be followed in late April with letters to all individual staff advising them of their position within the new structure."
Kevin Butler, debt case worker at York Citizens' Advice Bureau, said anyone who experienced a pay cut could contact them for help.
He said: "If people believe they are going to struggle then the best thing to do is get in touch with agencies such as the CAB and go in and discuss what possible options there are."
'Ensuring fair salaries'
ALL councils in the country have been carrying out pay grading reviews, to ensure workers get a fair wage for what they do, compared to their colleagues.
Jobs across City of York Council are being individually evaluated and graded according to what they entail, and employees will be paid accordingly.
Some jobs will fall down the ladder, meaning those who do them will lose pay.
Others will move up the scale, and the overall wage bill is set to increase.
The council has set aside just under £2.3 million in its base budget for the increase in its wage bill.
Simon Wiles, the council's director of resources, said: "The sum was set aside over the last three budgets.
"It is about a three per cent increase in total pay costs, but is less than the Government's advised figure of 4.5 per cent because York could not afford to set that much aside.
"The aim of the new pay structure will be to provide a more transparent, fairer and better pay structure."
Council leader Steve Galloway said he could not comment on the size of likely increases or decreases, but said: "There will be protection available for those who may lose out from the system, to ensure that there not any dramatic overnight reductions in take-home pay."
10:59am Thursday 20th March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: voiceoreason, york on 11:02am Thu 20 Mar 08
"The Press understands about 930 employees - one-in-six of the authority's staff - are likely to face a pay cut. However, the majority will enjoy a pay rise either immediately or gradually."
Typical example of the poor quality of journalism in this rag. Surely the headline should be, "The majority of council workers to get a pay rise."
"The Press understands about 930 employees - one-in-six of the authority's staff - are likely to face a pay cut. However, the majority will enjoy a pay rise either immediately or gradually."
Typical example of the poor quality of journalism in this rag. Surely the headline should be, "The majority of council workers to get a pay rise."
Posted by: voiceoreason, york on 11:04am Thu 20 Mar 08
"The Press understands about 930 employees - one-in-six of the authority's staff - are likely to face a pay cut. However, the majority will enjoy a pay rise either immediately or gradually."
Typical example of the poor quality of journalism in this rag. Surely the headline should be, "The majority of council workers to get a pay rise."
"The Press understands about 930 employees - one-in-six of the authority's staff - are likely to face a pay cut. However, the majority will enjoy a pay rise either immediately or gradually."
Typical example of the poor quality of journalism in this rag. Surely the headline should be, "The majority of council workers to get a pay rise."
Posted by: voiceoreason, york on 11:04am Thu 20 Mar 08
"The Press understands about 930 employees - one-in-six of the authority's staff - are likely to face a pay cut. However, the majority will enjoy a pay rise either immediately or gradually."
Typical example of the poor quality of journalism in this rag. Surely the headline should be, "The majority of council workers to get a pay rise."
"The Press understands about 930 employees - one-in-six of the authority's staff - are likely to face a pay cut. However, the majority will enjoy a pay rise either immediately or gradually."
Typical example of the poor quality of journalism in this rag. Surely the headline should be, "The majority of council workers to get a pay rise."
Posted by: Voice of reason, York on 11:08am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote]Posted by: voiceoreason, york[/quote]
Wow - 3 times as annoying as usual!
Posted by: voiceoreason, york
Wow - 3 times as annoying as usual!
Posted by: franky, york on 11:09am Thu 20 Mar 08
Agreed though, the Press always takes the negative angle on any story. For some reason they think that's what people want reported and want to read?
Catering to moaners and groaners, instead of reporting news or informing their readers.
Agreed though, the Press always takes the negative angle on any story. For some reason they think that's what people want reported and want to read?
Catering to moaners and groaners, instead of reporting news or informing their readers.
Posted by: voiceoreason, york on 11:11am Thu 20 Mar 08
Can someone explain to me just exactly who Mark Wallace is and why he is qualified to comment on things that happen in York?
Can someone explain to me just exactly who Mark Wallace is and why he is qualified to comment on things that happen in York?
Posted by: franky, york on 11:13am Thu 20 Mar 08
Mark Wallace is obviously some friend of the Press - a go-to person when they need a controversial quote?
Mark Wallace is obviously some friend of the Press - a go-to person when they need a controversial quote?
Posted by: voiceoreason, york on 11:14am Thu 20 Mar 08
"Ah, no. Worst case for all of those high-rolling groups is a marginal tax rate of 41%. The only people who face 80, 90, 100% tax rates are the poor." direct quote from Taxpayers Alliance website. I'd love to know who these poor people are who are paying out 100% of their earnings in Tax!
"Ah, no. Worst case for all of those high-rolling groups is a marginal tax rate of 41%. The only people who face 80, 90, 100% tax rates are the poor." direct quote from Taxpayers Alliance website. I'd love to know who these poor people are who are paying out 100% of their earnings in Tax!
Posted by: Gardener, York on 11:16am Thu 20 Mar 08
Where are the unions? One out all out and cripple this council, are the leaders taking a paycut?
Where are the unions? One out all out and cripple this council, are the leaders taking a paycut?
Posted by: Cyber-Dyne systems model 101, The future on 11:19am Thu 20 Mar 08
Trade Union lost any power they had back in the 80's.
They are more of advise station now.
Trade Union lost any power they had back in the 80's.
They are more of advise station now.
Posted by: Captain Jack Sparrow, Strensall on 11:22am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]voiceoreason[/bold] wrote:
"Ah, no. Worst case for all of those high-rolling groups is a marginal tax rate of 41%. The only people who face 80, 90, 100% tax rates are the poor." direct quote from Taxpayers Alliance website. I'd love to know who these poor people are who are paying out 100% of their earnings in Tax![/quote] It would be hard and it would need some organisation because this is happening countrywide in every council and shouldn't be.
If you want to cripple the councils and and stop the pay cuts, all affected individuals should simply resign, en-masse.
Councils would not be able to function - they would have to hire people in and the process of recruiting would cost an arm and a leg. Much much more than the proposed wage cuts.
Chief Exec - £145,000
Council members - 11% pay rise
Council tax average rise 3.9% - York rise 4.67%
This smacks of incompetence at the highest level. Councils are supposed to help people and as usual, it will be those who can least afford it who will suffer the most.
This isn't democracy. CYC are infested at councillor level and senior management level with individuals who believe their own self interests come first. The gravy train.
voiceoreason wrote:
"Ah, no. Worst case for all of those high-rolling groups is a marginal tax rate of 41%. The only people who face 80, 90, 100% tax rates are the poor." direct quote from Taxpayers Alliance website. I'd love to know who these poor people are who are paying out 100% of their earnings in Tax!
It would be hard and it would need some organisation because this is happening countrywide in every council and shouldn't be.
If you want to cripple the councils and and stop the pay cuts, all affected individuals should simply resign, en-masse.
Councils would not be able to function - they would have to hire people in and the process of recruiting would cost an arm and a leg. Much much more than the proposed wage cuts.
Chief Exec - £145,000
Council members - 11% pay rise
Council tax average rise 3.9% - York rise 4.67%
This smacks of incompetence at the highest level. Councils are supposed to help people and as usual, it will be those who can least afford it who will suffer the most.
This isn't democracy. CYC are infested at councillor level and senior management level with individuals who believe their own self interests come first. The gravy train.
Posted by: avidreader, York on 11:27am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gardener[/bold] wrote:
Where are the unions? One out all out and cripple this council, are the leaders taking a paycut?[/quote] 11% pay rise for councillors, bless em they deserve it while their employees take a wage cut. Glad I don't work for such a bunch of crooks!
Gardener wrote:
Where are the unions? One out all out and cripple this council, are the leaders taking a paycut?
11% pay rise for councillors, bless em they deserve it while their employees take a wage cut. Glad I don't work for such a bunch of crooks!
Posted by: Gardener, York on 11:27am Thu 20 Mar 08
Workers rise up against your oppressors.. it's like Medieval York with the Cruddas / Galloway guilds running the city.
Workers rise up against your oppressors.. it's like Medieval York with the Cruddas / Galloway guilds running the city.
Posted by: franky, york on 11:34am Thu 20 Mar 08
If you read the article, it's actually not a cut - the wages bill will increase, and they have had to set aside money for the last three years to be able to afford the rises.
Some individuals will suffer cuts in that - it's part of something called the single status agreement, to do with correcting traditional imbalances between unequal pay between men and women who were doing jobs the same or similar responsibilities. It should actually benefit those in positions on lower pay more than those on higher pay - in theory.
I am a union member and at risk of a pay cut, but the Council has had ten years to do this under law, and is only getting around to it at the very end, because it will end up costing them money, it's not a cut.
If you read the article, it's actually not a cut - the wages bill will increase, and they have had to set aside money for the last three years to be able to afford the rises.
Some individuals will suffer cuts in that - it's part of something called the single status agreement, to do with correcting traditional imbalances between unequal pay between men and women who were doing jobs the same or similar responsibilities. It should actually benefit those in positions on lower pay more than those on higher pay - in theory.
I am a union member and at risk of a pay cut, but the Council has had ten years to do this under law, and is only getting around to it at the very end, because it will end up costing them money, it's not a cut.
Posted by: TW, Wrong Planet on 11:35am Thu 20 Mar 08
The councilors had to fund their [bold]11%[/bold] rise from somewhere because they weren't allowed to raise council tax as much as they wanted.
Basic economics really - steal from the poor
The councilors had to fund their
11% rise from somewhere because they weren't allowed to raise council tax as much as they wanted.
Basic economics really - steal from the poor
Posted by: Miss Amelia Rate, YORK on 11:43am Thu 20 Mar 08
The same thing happend in the NHS and it was a disaster. Far more people than originally expected ended up taking cuts. People doing [bold]exactly the same job[/bold] ended up on different rates of pay and the Union were like chocolate firegaurds.
The same thing happend in the NHS and it was a disaster. Far more people than originally expected ended up taking cuts. People doing
exactly the same job ended up on different rates of pay and the Union were like chocolate firegaurds.
Posted by: Captain Jack Sparrow, Strensall on 11:44am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]franky[/bold] wrote:
If you read the article, it's actually not a cut - the wages bill will increase, and they have had to set aside money for the last three years to be able to afford the rises. Some individuals will suffer cuts in that - it's part of something called the single status agreement, to do with correcting traditional imbalances between unequal pay between men and women who were doing jobs the same or similar responsibilities. It should actually benefit those in positions on lower pay more than those on higher pay - in theory. I am a union member and at risk of a pay cut, but the Council has had ten years to do this under law, and is only getting around to it at the very end, because it will end up costing them money, it's not a cut.[/quote] Right Franky.
So the headline should read
[bold]Council Pay Imbalances[/bold]
This is one of the reasons why I jacked my council paid job in to retrain.
Councils come up with these 'brilliant' ideas don't they? Mark my words, the days of champagne socialism are numbered. Soon, they will be gone forever.
franky wrote:
If you read the article, it's actually not a cut - the wages bill will increase, and they have had to set aside money for the last three years to be able to afford the rises. Some individuals will suffer cuts in that - it's part of something called the single status agreement, to do with correcting traditional imbalances between unequal pay between men and women who were doing jobs the same or similar responsibilities. It should actually benefit those in positions on lower pay more than those on higher pay - in theory. I am a union member and at risk of a pay cut, but the Council has had ten years to do this under law, and is only getting around to it at the very end, because it will end up costing them money, it's not a cut.
Right Franky.
So the headline should read
Council Pay Imbalances
This is one of the reasons why I jacked my council paid job in to retrain.
Councils come up with these 'brilliant' ideas don't they? Mark my words, the days of champagne socialism are numbered. Soon, they will be gone forever.
Posted by: The York Citizen, York on 11:45am Thu 20 Mar 08
Simon wiles is on over £100000 per year, His salary and those of other Chief Officers have not been examined. Simon is also sbout to leave for a job in London. He has done very well out of York, his salary has risen by much more than inflation in the time he has been here. A classic case of slashing costs by reducing other people's pay - but still lapping up the cream himslf.
Simon wiles is on over £100000 per year, His salary and those of other Chief Officers have not been examined. Simon is also sbout to leave for a job in London. He has done very well out of York, his salary has risen by much more than inflation in the time he has been here. A classic case of slashing costs by reducing other people's pay - but still lapping up the cream himslf.
Posted by: franky, york on 11:50am Thu 20 Mar 08
@ Captain Jack...
It's a Government thing, for all Councils. Some did it years ago (East Riding), most are doing it last year or this year. Nothing to do but shrug shoulders and see what side of the cuts/rises line you fall on.
@ Captain Jack...
It's a Government thing, for all Councils. Some did it years ago (East Riding), most are doing it last year or this year. Nothing to do but shrug shoulders and see what side of the cuts/rises line you fall on.
Posted by: Miss Amelia Rate, YORK on 11:55am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]franky[/bold] wrote:
@ Captain Jack... It's a Government thing, for all Councils. Some did it years ago (East Riding), most are doing it last year or this year. Nothing to do but shrug shoulders and see what side of the cuts/rises line you fall on.[/quote] That's part of the trouble with the workers in this country - we shrug our shoulders and let the powers that be trample all over us. Tax us to the hilt then make us take pay cuts.
franky wrote:
@ Captain Jack... It's a Government thing, for all Councils. Some did it years ago (East Riding), most are doing it last year or this year. Nothing to do but shrug shoulders and see what side of the cuts/rises line you fall on.
That's part of the trouble with the workers in this country - we shrug our shoulders and let the powers that be trample all over us. Tax us to the hilt then make us take pay cuts.
Posted by: Captain Jack Sparrow, Strensall on 11:57am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]franky[/bold] wrote:
@ Captain Jack... It's a Government thing, for all Councils. Some did it years ago (East Riding), most are doing it last year or this year. Nothing to do but shrug shoulders and see what side of the cuts/rises line you fall on.[/quote] Yes I know. I used to work for one.
Careful Franky, you union people have already been tagged as 'Chocolate Fireguards'.
In the near future, will you contemporaries label you as 'Men of Straw'? Why pay your union subs if you just sit back and let it happen?
franky wrote:
@ Captain Jack... It's a Government thing, for all Councils. Some did it years ago (East Riding), most are doing it last year or this year. Nothing to do but shrug shoulders and see what side of the cuts/rises line you fall on.
Yes I know. I used to work for one.
Careful Franky, you union people have already been tagged as 'Chocolate Fireguards'.
In the near future, will you contemporaries label you as 'Men of Straw'? Why pay your union subs if you just sit back and let it happen?
Posted by: Irish, York on 12:11pm Thu 20 Mar 08
I think you may find that the majority of council staff will stay on the same salary - it's certainly not a case of the majority of staff getting a pay rise.
I think you may find that the majority of council staff will stay on the same salary - it's certainly not a case of the majority of staff getting a pay rise.
Posted by: petethefeet, York on 12:12pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Under what powers can employers reduce pay? Normally, one marks time at the current pay until inflation matches the rate for the job. Is this not what will happen?
Under what powers can employers reduce pay? Normally, one marks time at the current pay until inflation matches the rate for the job. Is this not what will happen?
Posted by: Gardener on 12:13pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Captain Jack Sparrow[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]franky[/bold] wrote: @ Captain Jack... It's a Government thing, for all Councils. Some did it years ago (East Riding), most are doing it last year or this year. Nothing to do but shrug shoulders and see what side of the cuts/rises line you fall on.[/quote] Yes I know. I used to work for one. Careful Franky, you union people have already been tagged as 'Chocolate Fireguards'. In the near future, will you contemporaries label you as 'Men of Straw'? Why pay your union subs if you just sit back and let it happen?[/quote] I went on strike once.. for three days... and nothing apart from three days loss of pay and pension contributions was gained. That was in the days of 'closed shops' when everyone was in the union and the repercussions of not joining the strike rang out for years after. People have lost the fight and thus the unions their teeth, as they all know if they lose their jobs, the benefit system pays nearly as well.
Captain Jack Sparrow wrote:
franky wrote: @ Captain Jack... It's a Government thing, for all Councils. Some did it years ago (East Riding), most are doing it last year or this year. Nothing to do but shrug shoulders and see what side of the cuts/rises line you fall on.
Yes I know. I used to work for one. Careful Franky, you union people have already been tagged as 'Chocolate Fireguards'. In the near future, will you contemporaries label you as 'Men of Straw'? Why pay your union subs if you just sit back and let it happen?
I went on strike once.. for three days... and nothing apart from three days loss of pay and pension contributions was gained. That was in the days of 'closed shops' when everyone was in the union and the repercussions of not joining the strike rang out for years after. People have lost the fight and thus the unions their teeth, as they all know if they lose their jobs, the benefit system pays nearly as well.
Posted by: Boris the Tonk, York on 12:14pm Thu 20 Mar 08
This isn't about champagne socialism, it's about paying women the same as men, and paying part-time employees the same hourly rate as full-time employees [bold]for doing the same job[/bold]. The Council has recognised (or been forced to recognise) that historic pay inequalities (those that still exist in the private sector) have to be faced up to and sorted out. Of course they could put up everyone's pay but you'd be the first to howl if that happened and do so with the same blissful ignorance you do about most things. (Example: the Councillor's pay increase was over 4 years and was a de facto pay cut. You might think they should be paid nothing at all but that doesn't change the truth of the matter as it is.)
Another reason is that different 'types' of workers were employed on different T&Cs. This was partly historic and based upon the differences between blue collar and white collar union representation and partly because of issues surrounding York's move to a Unitary authority a decade or so ago. Thus overtime rates, lieu time agreements, holidays and pensions were different for people who worked in the same teams, at the depot for example.
So what has happened is a very lengthy and quite painful process has been undertaken comparing wages in similar authorities to ensure fairness. It most certainly won't be perfect and it will cause a lot of problems but it has to be done and it is being done.
The Unions, of course, are in something of a quandry. They can hardly complain when most of their members' wages will go UP, so they have had to accept the principles whilst agreeing with the council how the reductions will be phased in. This is why there will be a larger net increase in the wage bill. If an employee gains a £1000 increase he or she is paid it immediately; someone who loses £1000 will have a certain amount of protection, probably one year, and the reduction will be gradual after that.
I work for the Council and am expecting my letter soon and am anticipating a slight decrease in salary (and, for the record, I think I am overpaid compared to similar roles I've seen advertised in the private sector and other councils; even without the pension and leave benefits I get). The problem for me is not the fairness or otherwise, like the good Captain I can always get another job if I don't like it (an idea which seems to baffle a lot of public sector workers), but the fact that there are a number of staff in the council who do very little to justify their wages whilst make it deliberately hard for the managers to remove them. Those who take sick leave almost as an entitlement, those who give bad service and don't care, those who think their annual pay increases are a right, regardless of how well they have worked and those who simply are very bad at their job but have found a cosy desk to sit at and wait for someone to do something about it (which they won't because it's too **** difficult). This will help fairness in the Council, but it won't help the problems of inefficiency or weak management.
This isn't about champagne socialism, it's about paying women the same as men, and paying part-time employees the same hourly rate as full-time employees
for doing the same job. The Council has recognised (or been forced to recognise) that historic pay inequalities (those that still exist in the private sector) have to be faced up to and sorted out. Of course they could put up everyone's pay but you'd be the first to howl if that happened and do so with the same blissful ignorance you do about most things. (Example: the Councillor's pay increase was over 4 years and was a de facto pay cut. You might think they should be paid nothing at all but that doesn't change the truth of the matter as it is.)
Another reason is that different 'types' of workers were employed on different T&Cs. This was partly historic and based upon the differences between blue collar and white collar union representation and partly because of issues surrounding York's move to a Unitary authority a decade or so ago. Thus overtime rates, lieu time agreements, holidays and pensions were different for people who worked in the same teams, at the depot for example.
So what has happened is a very lengthy and quite painful process has been undertaken comparing wages in similar authorities to ensure fairness. It most certainly won't be perfect and it will cause a lot of problems but it has to be done and it is being done.
The Unions, of course, are in something of a quandry. They can hardly complain when most of their members' wages will go UP, so they have had to accept the principles whilst agreeing with the council how the reductions will be phased in. This is why there will be a larger net increase in the wage bill. If an employee gains a £1000 increase he or she is paid it immediately; someone who loses £1000 will have a certain amount of protection, probably one year, and the reduction will be gradual after that.
I work for the Council and am expecting my letter soon and am anticipating a slight decrease in salary (and, for the record, I think I am overpaid compared to similar roles I've seen advertised in the private sector and other councils; even without the pension and leave benefits I get). The problem for me is not the fairness or otherwise, like the good Captain I can always get another job if I don't like it (an idea which seems to baffle a lot of public sector workers), but the fact that there are a number of staff in the council who do very little to justify their wages whilst make it deliberately hard for the managers to remove them. Those who take sick leave almost as an entitlement, those who give bad service and don't care, those who think their annual pay increases are a right, regardless of how well they have worked and those who simply are very bad at their job but have found a cosy desk to sit at and wait for someone to do something about it (which they won't because it's too **** difficult). This will help fairness in the Council, but it won't help the problems of inefficiency or weak management.
Posted by: Miss Amelia Rate, YORK on 12:38pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote:
Under what powers can employers reduce pay? Normally, one marks time at the current pay until inflation matches the rate for the job. Is this not what will happen?[/quote] You are right, technically they don't reduce pay, what happens is you stay on the same pay with no increase (cost of living or otherwise) for X number of years, but of course in real terms in view of the 15%, sorry 2% inflation your pay goes down.
Yes people can change jobs, I did from the NHS, but I had to leave a job I loved and people I enjoyed working with. Not really because of the money either it was the principle of the thing, as I said earlier, it ended up people doing EXACTLY the same job (job share) on different rates of pay.
petethefeet wrote:
Under what powers can employers reduce pay? Normally, one marks time at the current pay until inflation matches the rate for the job. Is this not what will happen?
You are right, technically they don't reduce pay, what happens is you stay on the same pay with no increase (cost of living or otherwise) for X number of years, but of course in real terms in view of the 15%, sorry 2% inflation your pay goes down.
Yes people can change jobs, I did from the NHS, but I had to leave a job I loved and people I enjoyed working with. Not really because of the money either it was the principle of the thing, as I said earlier, it ended up people doing EXACTLY the same job (job share) on different rates of pay.
Posted by: Mike, York on 12:49pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Boris the Tonk wrote:
"I think I am overpaid compared to similar roles I've seen advertised in the private sector and other councils; even without the pension and leave benefits I get). The problem for me is not the fairness or otherwise, like the good Captain I can always get another job if I don't like it (an idea which seems to baffle a lot of public sector workers), but the fact that there are a number of staff in the council who do very little to justify their wages whilst make it deliberately hard for the managers to remove them. Those who take sick leave almost as an entitlement, those who give bad service and don't care, those who think their annual pay increases are a right, regardless of how well they have worked and those who simply are very bad at their job but have found a cosy desk to sit at and wait for someone to do something about it".
I couldn't agree more. The council is massively padded out by idle clock watchers who wouldn't last a week in the private sector, as they well know.
Boris, you sound like a decent bloke, get out now, before those deadbeats suck all the initiative and self awareness out of you!
Boris the Tonk wrote:
"I think I am overpaid compared to similar roles I've seen advertised in the private sector and other councils; even without the pension and leave benefits I get). The problem for me is not the fairness or otherwise, like the good Captain I can always get another job if I don't like it (an idea which seems to baffle a lot of public sector workers), but the fact that there are a number of staff in the council who do very little to justify their wages whilst make it deliberately hard for the managers to remove them. Those who take sick leave almost as an entitlement, those who give bad service and don't care, those who think their annual pay increases are a right, regardless of how well they have worked and those who simply are very bad at their job but have found a cosy desk to sit at and wait for someone to do something about it".
I couldn't agree more. The council is massively padded out by idle clock watchers who wouldn't last a week in the private sector, as they well know.
Boris, you sound like a decent bloke, get out now, before those deadbeats suck all the initiative and self awareness out of you!
Posted by: franky, york on 12:52pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Well written Boris.
Couldn't disagree with any of the points you've raised.
Have also just grabbed a sarnie and seen the splash headline on display outside the shops "Council pay cut [bold]fury[/bold] " when there is nothing in the article about any fury?
Well written Boris.
Couldn't disagree with any of the points you've raised.
Have also just grabbed a sarnie and seen the splash headline on display outside the shops "Council pay cut
fury " when there is nothing in the article about any fury?
Posted by: Voice Of reason on 12:54pm Thu 20 Mar 08
What about the £10 million that CoYC will be getting from their conspiracy with JRF to destroy the green fields of Osbaldwick?
What about the £10 million that CoYC will be getting from their conspiracy with JRF to destroy the green fields of Osbaldwick?
Posted by: bill and ben, york on 12:59pm Thu 20 Mar 08
how has the press got this information, I have had a letter from my bosses (council) saying we will not find out till april if we are getting more/less pay, once again the press are guessing or we are been fobed off by the council
how has the press got this information, I have had a letter from my bosses (council) saying we will not find out till april if we are getting more/less pay, once again the press are guessing or we are been fobed off by the council
Posted by: Voice of reason, York on 1:05pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote]Posted by: voiceoreason, york[/quote]
[quote]Posted by: Voice Of reason[/quote]
Why can you folk not get an imagination instead of copying?
How hard can it be?
Noted, and reported.
Posted by: voiceoreason, york
Posted by: Voice Of reason
Why can you folk not get an imagination instead of copying?
How hard can it be?
Noted, and reported.
Posted by: Porteno, York on 1:10pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Poor reporting once again from The Press.
Unison refused to comment in detail, because negotiations are ongoing, so The Press goes instead to mouth-on-a-stick Mark Wallace and his one-man-band.
The union is right to negotiate, but I hope they're organising to take action to defend any workers who have their wages cut. Who can afford to take less pay with inflation (especially food and energy prices) rising dramatically?
Poor reporting once again from The Press.
Unison refused to comment in detail, because negotiations are ongoing, so The Press goes instead to mouth-on-a-stick Mark Wallace and his one-man-band.
The union is right to negotiate, but I hope they're organising to take action to defend any workers who have their wages cut. Who can afford to take less pay with inflation (especially food and energy prices) rising dramatically?
Posted by: voiceoreason, york on 1:22pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gardener[/bold] wrote:
Where are the unions? One out all out and cripple this council, are the leaders taking a paycut?[/quote] Why would the unions get involved when the majority of their members will be getting a pay increase?
Gardener wrote:
Where are the unions? One out all out and cripple this council, are the leaders taking a paycut?
Why would the unions get involved when the majority of their members will be getting a pay increase?
Posted by: paul, darlo on 1:28pm Thu 20 Mar 08
doesnt suprise me -the York authority have been a huge bunch of rip off merchants for years with crappy second rate services- all they want is YOUR HARD EARNED CASH in return for what??? a shoddy feel sorry for the workers.simon wiles is as useless as the rest.
doesnt suprise me -the York authority have been a huge bunch of rip off merchants for years with crappy second rate services- all they want is YOUR HARD EARNED CASH in return for what??? a shoddy feel sorry for the workers.simon wiles is as useless as the rest.
Posted by: Dave Taylor, Fishergate, York on 1:33pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Someone asked "Who is Mark Wallace and why is he qualified to speak about issues in York?
It's a good question! He isn't and he should stick his nose out.
Anyway, here's who the blighter is...
-------
Mark Wallace was born in North Shields, North Tyneside, in 1984. Educated at the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle, he chaired the school Debating Society and competed in various national debating competitions.
After school, Mark studied Archaeology at Durham University, specialising in Roman and Early Medieval British Archaeology and worked for the Bamburgh Research Project. Outside academic life, he was involved in student campaigns as Senior Student Union Representative and, later, Senior Man (JCR President) of St Chad’s College, Durham.
Mark has been politically active since his teens, supporting campaigns against the Euro and for a referendum on the EU Constitution before campaigning for a No vote in the 2004 referendum on the North East Regional Assembly – in which the Assembly was resoundingly rejected.
Before joining the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Mark was the Campaign Manager of The Freedom Association between September 2005 and October 2007, campaigning in defence of individual, economic and political freedom on issues from ID cards and free speech to tax and the EU. He has been a regular guest speaker at political meetings, dinners and rallies across the country as well as a commentator across the media on a variety of topics.
Mark has written for a variety of publications, including Freedom Today magazine, ConservativeHome.com
, the Newcastle Journal and the Birmingham Post. He is also the Deputy Editor of LibertarianUK.
-------
[bold]Now, let's find out how much he is paid[/bold] !!
Someone asked "Who is Mark Wallace and why is he qualified to speak about issues in York?
It's a good question! He isn't and he should stick his nose out.
Anyway, here's who the blighter is...
-------
Mark Wallace was born in North Shields, North Tyneside, in 1984. Educated at the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle, he chaired the school Debating Society and competed in various national debating competitions.
After school, Mark studied Archaeology at Durham University, specialising in Roman and Early Medieval British Archaeology and worked for the Bamburgh Research Project. Outside academic life, he was involved in student campaigns as Senior Student Union Representative and, later, Senior Man (JCR President) of St Chad’s College, Durham.
Mark has been politically active since his teens, supporting campaigns against the Euro and for a referendum on the EU Constitution before campaigning for a No vote in the 2004 referendum on the North East Regional Assembly – in which the Assembly was resoundingly rejected.
Before joining the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Mark was the Campaign Manager of The Freedom Association between September 2005 and October 2007, campaigning in defence of individual, economic and political freedom on issues from ID cards and free speech to tax and the EU. He has been a regular guest speaker at political meetings, dinners and rallies across the country as well as a commentator across the media on a variety of topics.
Mark has written for a variety of publications, including Freedom Today magazine, ConservativeHome.com
, the Newcastle Journal and the Birmingham Post. He is also the Deputy Editor of LibertarianUK.
-------
Now, let's find out how much he is paid !!
Posted by: only human, HUNTINGTON on 1:38pm Thu 20 Mar 08
The ballot box is the only way to remove the self serving trough licking beurocrats that run our public services.Those in lower ranking jobs are inevivitably the ones to suffer.No doubt the fat cats at the top will skim the cream for their second homes and jet set life styles.Unions suck.They are run by spineless monkeys who bow to the dictations of their organ grinders.
The ballot box is the only way to remove the self serving trough licking beurocrats that run our public services.Those in lower ranking jobs are inevivitably the ones to suffer.No doubt the fat cats at the top will skim the cream for their second homes and jet set life styles.Unions suck.They are run by spineless monkeys who bow to the dictations of their organ grinders.
Posted by: wiggles, York on 1:40pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Porteno[/bold] wrote:
Poor reporting once again from The Press. Unison refused to comment in detail, because negotiations are ongoing, so The Press goes instead to mouth-on-a-stick Mark Wallace and his one-man-band. The union is right to negotiate, but I hope they're organising to take action to defend any workers who have their wages cut. Who can afford to take less pay with inflation (especially food and energy prices) rising dramatically?[/quote] As a council worker affected by this (and a member of Unison) I can tell you that the union don't give a stuff about the workers neither for that matter do the council management. Negotiations have been going on 6 months and they still don't seem to be able to get it right. Our hourly rate was cut by a third at Christmas (for which we did receive some compensation to cover loss up to March 2008), however, our new pay structure which is supposed to be taking effect from 1st April has now been delayed until July 2008. The council are now expecting their employees to continue working for a third less pay just because they can't organise their administration - the council know exactly how much they will be paying us but just seem to want to keep it under wraps for now. They have no thought for people like me whose Mortgage, bills etc have to be paid - these have not been reduced by a third infact in recent months every outgoing has gone up. Would the management be prepared to take a 33% wage cut - I don't think so so why should we.
Porteno wrote:
Poor reporting once again from The Press. Unison refused to comment in detail, because negotiations are ongoing, so The Press goes instead to mouth-on-a-stick Mark Wallace and his one-man-band. The union is right to negotiate, but I hope they're organising to take action to defend any workers who have their wages cut. Who can afford to take less pay with inflation (especially food and energy prices) rising dramatically?
As a council worker affected by this (and a member of Unison) I can tell you that the union don't give a stuff about the workers neither for that matter do the council management. Negotiations have been going on 6 months and they still don't seem to be able to get it right. Our hourly rate was cut by a third at Christmas (for which we did receive some compensation to cover loss up to March 2008), however, our new pay structure which is supposed to be taking effect from 1st April has now been delayed until July 2008. The council are now expecting their employees to continue working for a third less pay just because they can't organise their administration - the council know exactly how much they will be paying us but just seem to want to keep it under wraps for now. They have no thought for people like me whose Mortgage, bills etc have to be paid - these have not been reduced by a third infact in recent months every outgoing has gone up. Would the management be prepared to take a 33% wage cut - I don't think so so why should we.
Posted by: only human, HUNTINGTON on 1:46pm Thu 20 Mar 08
The ballot box is the only way to remove the self serving trough licking beurocrats that run our public services.Those in lower ranking jobs are inevivitably the ones to suffer.No doubt the fat cats at the top will skim the cream for their second homes and jet set life styles.Unions suck.They are run by spineless monkeys who bow to the dictations of their organ grinders.
The ballot box is the only way to remove the self serving trough licking beurocrats that run our public services.Those in lower ranking jobs are inevivitably the ones to suffer.No doubt the fat cats at the top will skim the cream for their second homes and jet set life styles.Unions suck.They are run by spineless monkeys who bow to the dictations of their organ grinders.
Posted by: wildthing666, york on 1:46pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Will the pay cut be just that some are not getting a rise while others are?
Will the pay cut be just that some are not getting a rise while others are?
Posted by: beanymermer, york on 1:49pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Boris, you took the words right out of my mouth. I too work for CYC and find productivity levels laughable at best in some areas. I have also come to believe that 'long-term sick' is actually a holiday resort on the Spanish coast.
Boris, you took the words right out of my mouth. I too work for CYC and find productivity levels laughable at best in some areas. I have also come to believe that 'long-term sick' is actually a holiday resort on the Spanish coast.
Posted by: see sense, york on 1:50pm Thu 20 Mar 08
I agree so far with Boris and Captain. But I think the system is flawed.
firstly, this will do nothing to get rid of the idle and slckers because it is all judged on job description not output.
Secondly, there is no sexual descrimination pay wise in the council. The pay is a given rate for any particular scale, regardless of what sex you are. It just so happens that for example there are more male engineers and more female social workers.
lastly, how do you decide whether somebody who designs a bridge or a building that won't fall down is worth more or less than a social worker or a bin man etc.
Some jobs are paid more because or market forces - ie an engineer can get a job eleswhere as an engineer, but there are no private sector social workers are there ?
I agree so far with Boris and Captain. But I think the system is flawed.
firstly, this will do nothing to get rid of the idle and slckers because it is all judged on job description not output.
Secondly, there is no sexual descrimination pay wise in the council. The pay is a given rate for any particular scale, regardless of what sex you are. It just so happens that for example there are more male engineers and more female social workers.
lastly, how do you decide whether somebody who designs a bridge or a building that won't fall down is worth more or less than a social worker or a bin man etc.
Some jobs are paid more because or market forces - ie an engineer can get a job eleswhere as an engineer, but there are no private sector social workers are there ?
Posted by: only human, huntington on 1:57pm Thu 20 Mar 08
dejavu------we suffered the same fate at nestles .currently under the redundancy axe..awaiting exection in october.the company had everyone over a barrel despite posting massive profits.if i agreed to stay under the new terms and conditions i would be forced to take a third less in wages compared to my 2002 year end salary and suffer the ongoing effects of longer working hours and extremely unsociable working hours.Thinking of going to work for the council though so its out of the chip pan and into the fire.No respite for the working class.Oh yeah and thanks to the GMB for selling us down the river...I will never trust a union rep again.
dejavu------we suffered the same fate at nestles .currently under the redundancy axe..awaiting exection in october.the company had everyone over a barrel despite posting massive profits.if i agreed to stay under the new terms and conditions i would be forced to take a third less in wages compared to my 2002 year end salary and suffer the ongoing effects of longer working hours and extremely unsociable working hours.Thinking of going to work for the council though so its out of the chip pan and into the fire.No respite for the working class.Oh yeah and thanks to the GMB for selling us down the river...I will never trust a union rep again.
Posted by: Miss Amelia Rate, YORK on 2:06pm Thu 20 Mar 08
2thanks to the GMB for selling us down the river...I will never trust a union rep again."
Funny, they got us out of the mess that Unison got us into in the NHS.
2thanks to the GMB for selling us down the river...I will never trust a union rep again."
Funny, they got us out of the mess that Unison got us into in the NHS.
Posted by: TheManWithTheFuManch
uMoustache, LaLa land on 2:36pm Thu 20 Mar 08
What's with all the Morning Star stylee 'poor oppressed workers' nonsense. This is the council we're talking about - not 19th century factory workers.
Of course if everyone wants an even bigger increase in their council tax bills then hey - let's give 'em all a dirty great pay rise for nothing.
What's with all the Morning Star stylee 'poor oppressed workers' nonsense. This is the council we're talking about - not 19th century factory workers.
Of course if everyone wants an even bigger increase in their council tax bills then hey - let's give 'em all a dirty great pay rise for nothing.
Posted by: Boris the Tonk, York on 2:37pm Thu 20 Mar 08
see sense speaks, erm, sense when s/he says the system is flawed because of the lack of market forces and this is something that, in their admirable effort to be fair in pay and gradings, the Council don't really understand. Pay should not be 'fair' in the sense of the same for everyone, even in the same job. I am a middle-manager with a team of between 12-20 staff and three-quarters of them are excellent workers. They do the same job as the other 25% of their colleagues but they do it better. The pay structure does not reward this, it rewards staff based upon their job description, not the job execution so any attempt to level the playing field in terms of job description will only make it easier for less-effective staff to get their legs under the table and stay there. Granted they have to find their way into the job in the first place but, as any Council manager will know, the misguided attempts to be fair means that I have to follow a long and expensive recruitment campaign based almost entirely on interview performance (thus blocking out the 50% of people who don't come across well in interviews). I want the freedom to be judged by my results as a manager...if I make a decision about my staffing levels and budget then I expect to be judged by the results and I would expect my manager can kick my ar5e around the room if she thinks I don't deliver. But this fairness exercise doesn't address that. So, despite 18 years experience I am not permitted to pay my best staff more because that would be 'unfair' to those who can't cut the mustard.
only human - I sympathise with you hugely, especially because you have a bottom line (profits and share value) and you meet and exceed those targets. In local government such a bottom line is, as see sense says, difficult to quantify. If my team work more effecively this quarter, there will be less work next quarter and we aren't allowed to take on additional tasks because of, you guessed it, our job description which doesn't allow us to.
So, sorry to bore you all with Council politics. I think, as an employer, it is far too concerned with fairness that it allows hugely unfair practices to be cemented in and makes it so very difficult to move away from. Almost every half-decent manager knows we could provide a 10% better service and save 10% on costs almost immediately if the rules were relaxed a little. But 'fairness' is a word that now has very little to do with being fair to those who deserve it.
One quick note about Unison. I don't have a huge affection for them as a body, but they exists for one reason: to represent their members' interests. Whether a person is right or wrong, Unison has to argue for them because that is what they do. They have a tricky job in this pay review because they have to argue both in favour of pay rises for some staff and against pay cuts for others. If they cut out their blinkered beligerence to change of any sort it would help but you can't slag off a dog for barking; that is what it does.
see sense speaks, erm, sense when s/he says the system is flawed because of the lack of market forces and this is something that, in their admirable effort to be fair in pay and gradings, the Council don't really understand. Pay should not be 'fair' in the sense of the same for everyone, even in the same job. I am a middle-manager with a team of between 12-20 staff and three-quarters of them are excellent workers. They do the same job as the other 25% of their colleagues but they do it better. The pay structure does not reward this, it rewards staff based upon their job description, not the job execution so any attempt to level the playing field in terms of job description will only make it easier for less-effective staff to get their legs under the table and stay there. Granted they have to find their way into the job in the first place but, as any Council manager will know, the misguided attempts to be fair means that I have to follow a long and expensive recruitment campaign based almost entirely on interview performance (thus blocking out the 50% of people who don't come across well in interviews). I want the freedom to be judged by my results as a manager...if I make a decision about my staffing levels and budget then I expect to be judged by the results and I would expect my manager can kick my ar5e around the room if she thinks I don't deliver. But this fairness exercise doesn't address that. So, despite 18 years experience I am not permitted to pay my best staff more because that would be 'unfair' to those who can't cut the mustard.
only human - I sympathise with you hugely, especially because you have a bottom line (profits and share value) and you meet and exceed those targets. In local government such a bottom line is, as see sense says, difficult to quantify. If my team work more effecively this quarter, there will be less work next quarter and we aren't allowed to take on additional tasks because of, you guessed it, our job description which doesn't allow us to.
So, sorry to bore you all with Council politics. I think, as an employer, it is far too concerned with fairness that it allows hugely unfair practices to be cemented in and makes it so very difficult to move away from. Almost every half-decent manager knows we could provide a 10% better service and save 10% on costs almost immediately if the rules were relaxed a little. But 'fairness' is a word that now has very little to do with being fair to those who deserve it.
One quick note about Unison. I don't have a huge affection for them as a body, but they exists for one reason: to represent their members' interests. Whether a person is right or wrong, Unison has to argue for them because that is what they do. They have a tricky job in this pay review because they have to argue both in favour of pay rises for some staff and against pay cuts for others. If they cut out their blinkered beligerence to change of any sort it would help but you can't slag off a dog for barking; that is what it does.
Posted by: ALD, York on 3:20pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Quite an eye opener from "Boris The Tonk".
Having always worked in the private sector, though alongside local authories and civil servants at times, I always suspected that these sort of thing were happening in some areas and in respect of some individuals in local authorities and in national government, not only in York.
Now it has been confirmed what are our servants the local authority managers and elected members going to do about it on our (tax payers)behalf?
Quite an eye opener from "Boris The Tonk".
Having always worked in the private sector, though alongside local authories and civil servants at times, I always suspected that these sort of thing were happening in some areas and in respect of some individuals in local authorities and in national government, not only in York.
Now it has been confirmed what are our servants the local authority managers and elected members going to do about it on our (tax payers)behalf?
Posted by: Uncle Tony, York on 3:28pm Thu 20 Mar 08
How orange is Simon Wiles's face in that picture? I'm not sure whether I now want a can of Tango or to watch the Lottery with Dale Winton.
How orange is Simon Wiles's face in that picture? I'm not sure whether I now want a can of Tango or to watch the Lottery with Dale Winton.
Posted by: redp, Huntington on 3:40pm Thu 20 Mar 08
A workforce of 5,600 and it still takes them six weeks to update a change of address on the council tax records!
A workforce of 5,600 and it still takes them six weeks to update a change of address on the council tax records!
Posted by: Tilly Mint, York on 4:50pm Thu 20 Mar 08
I used to work for the council and would like to bet that only the lower-paid grades will have their pay cut. In my experience, no matter how inefficient the managers were, they never seemed to suffer any repercussions, in fact they often got promoted. Yes, there were some workers who put in far less effort than others, and some who were forever calling in sick, but they only got away with it if they were well in with the managers. If your face didn't fit, on the other hand, they were down on you like a ton of bricks. I also saw a lot of money wasted through poor management. Unison are excellent at defending individual members with problems, but when it comes to a big council-wide issue they don't seem to be able to make much headway.
I used to work for the council and would like to bet that only the lower-paid grades will have their pay cut. In my experience, no matter how inefficient the managers were, they never seemed to suffer any repercussions, in fact they often got promoted. Yes, there were some workers who put in far less effort than others, and some who were forever calling in sick, but they only got away with it if they were well in with the managers. If your face didn't fit, on the other hand, they were down on you like a ton of bricks. I also saw a lot of money wasted through poor management. Unison are excellent at defending individual members with problems, but when it comes to a big council-wide issue they don't seem to be able to make much headway.
Posted by: ouserower, york on 9:44am Fri 21 Mar 08
Why do we pay such high wages for such poor managers?
Why do we pay such high wages for such poor managers?
Posted by: ChrisYork born&bred, YORK on 10:19am Fri 21 Mar 08
Today the unions are management in disguise, all workers should kick stones until something is sorted out, Todays unions are a joke....
Today the unions are management in disguise, all workers should kick stones until something is sorted out, Todays unions are a joke....
Posted by: ChrisYork born&bred, YORK on 10:35am Fri 21 Mar 08
Boris tonk should run the council,sounds like s/he has got the balls to sort the wheat from the chaff, Just imagine a council with everone being able to do their job quickly & efficiently instead of passing things on to someone else all the time because they cannot do the job they are paid for,(sorry I got dreaming there.!!!!)
Boris tonk should run the council,sounds like s/he has got the balls to sort the wheat from the chaff, Just imagine a council with everone being able to do their job quickly & efficiently instead of passing things on to someone else all the time because they cannot do the job they are paid for,(sorry I got dreaming there.!!!!)
Posted by: night driver, york on 6:26pm Fri 21 Mar 08
After spending most of my working life in the private sector I worked for CYC for a while. IMO Boris the Tonk has described the situation very well.
After spending most of my working life in the private sector I worked for CYC for a while. IMO Boris the Tonk has described the situation very well.
Posted by: mivvi, near York on 12:38am Sat 22 Mar 08
[quote]They do the same job as the other 25% of their colleagues but they do it better. The pay structure does not reward this, it rewards staff based upon their job description, not the job execution so any attempt to level the playing field in terms of job description will only make it easier for less-effective staff to get their legs under the table and stay there.[/quote]
Then you need a proper appraisal system which rewards the doers and achievers whilst penalising others. Under-achievers are repeatedly warned and if there is no improvement are eventually dismissed or compromised out. That's how it works in the private sector, in which I have been a manager for over 25 years. The private sector cannot afford to carry slackers. When will the public sector face the real world?
They do the same job as the other 25% of their colleagues but they do it better. The pay structure does not reward this, it rewards staff based upon their job description, not the job execution so any attempt to level the playing field in terms of job description will only make it easier for less-effective staff to get their legs under the table and stay there.
Then you need a proper appraisal system which rewards the doers and achievers whilst penalising others. Under-achievers are repeatedly warned and if there is no improvement are eventually dismissed or compromised out. That's how it works in the private sector, in which I have been a manager for over 25 years. The private sector cannot afford to carry slackers. When will the public sector face the real world?
Posted by: see sense, york on 11:56pm Sat 22 Mar 08
[quote]Then you need a proper appraisal system which rewards the doers and achievers whilst penalising others. Under-achievers are repeatedly warned and if there is no improvement are eventually dismissed or compromised out. That's how it works in the private sector, in which I have been a manager for over 25 years. The private sector cannot afford to carry slackers. When will the public sector face the real world?[/quote]
In an ideal world it would. The biggest problem though is too many managers do not manage as if it is their own money they are spending. their job description and status depends on how many people they are "responsible" for. So there is no incentive to get rid of dead wood from their point of view. All though I believe it is changing for the better in many authorities.
But the other side of it is that there are people with disabilities or with poor health who work for Local Authorities and take a lot of time of sick. Not good, but on the other hand, they do something useful when thay are at work.
Whereas a private sector company just wouldn't employ them at all and they would be on benefits doing nothing useful at all.
Then you need a proper appraisal system which rewards the doers and achievers whilst penalising others. Under-achievers are repeatedly warned and if there is no improvement are eventually dismissed or compromised out. That's how it works in the private sector, in which I have been a manager for over 25 years. The private sector cannot afford to carry slackers. When will the public sector face the real world?
In an ideal world it would. The biggest problem though is too many managers do not manage as if it is their own money they are spending. their job description and status depends on how many people they are "responsible" for. So there is no incentive to get rid of dead wood from their point of view. All though I believe it is changing for the better in many authorities.
But the other side of it is that there are people with disabilities or with poor health who work for Local Authorities and take a lot of time of sick. Not good, but on the other hand, they do something useful when thay are at work.
Whereas a private sector company just wouldn't employ them at all and they would be on benefits doing nothing useful at all.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
