Recession Risk As Britain Reels From...
News0 min ago
Is It Time To Address The Renumeration Of Some Public Paid Eomployees ?
9 Answers
Damning audit today reveals 539 council staff took home at least £150,000
http://
Many heads of multi-academy trusts earn ‘obscene’ six-figure salaries as the ‘rot of greed’ sets into the education system, activists said.
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) said the bloated state school pay-packets were ‘unsustainable’ and dwarfed many of those in the independent sector
http://
And of course the ridiculous salaries paid to an excessive number of NHS management.
It is getting out of hand, not only should the pay be reviewed and restricted but also pay-offs for bad work and gold plated pensions. These are not businesses - they do not have financially interested shareholders wanting a dividend nor do they have to chase business for money (They simply tap the tax payer for more).
Time to stop this madness? Pay should be related to performance.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think most will be on some form of performance related pay though, YMF- performance management is in place in most public sector organisations. Whether it's done properly is another thing.
It sounds a lot but there will be many in the private sector who earn more but have far fewer staff to manage. Some traders earn that in a month. Footballers earn that in a week. Running a large council or health trust or school with a budget of tens of millions is a big job and I would expect salaries of £100K plus. If the salaries were capped as ATL suggest it may push down the ATL members' salaries as a differential needs to be maintained. Some schools have difficulties recruiting heads even at these salaries
It sounds a lot but there will be many in the private sector who earn more but have far fewer staff to manage. Some traders earn that in a month. Footballers earn that in a week. Running a large council or health trust or school with a budget of tens of millions is a big job and I would expect salaries of £100K plus. If the salaries were capped as ATL suggest it may push down the ATL members' salaries as a differential needs to be maintained. Some schools have difficulties recruiting heads even at these salaries
The phase 'Earns more than the Prime Minister ' is highly misleading.
The Prime Minister get a total remuneration package of far more than the basic salary of £150,000 of so.
For a start the PM gets free accommodation in two houses no 10 and Chequers with all staff and expenses including food paid for.
The Prime Minister get a total remuneration package of far more than the basic salary of £150,000 of so.
For a start the PM gets free accommodation in two houses no 10 and Chequers with all staff and expenses including food paid for.
“Some traders earn that in a month. Footballers earn that in a week.”
Yes they certainly do. But the big difference is that their pay comes from a business that has customers and shareholders who can all take their custom and business elsewhere (or, in the case of football, stop watching it entirely). If somebody on low wages is daft enough to shell or £50 or more to get through the gate or pay ridiculous Sky Sport or BT Sport subscriptions to watch footballers earning five times as much in a week as they earn in a year then good luck to them.
Council taxpayers (and general taxpayers) have no such choice. Money is appropriated from them under threat of criminal sanctions to pay for organisations which – in the case of local authorities - largely do not need to exist. One only has to look through the public sector vacancies in the Grauniad to see the sort of waste that prevails and this stretches right to the top. Regardless of how much the Prime Minister earns, it is clear that payments to “Chief Executives” and other senior Town Hall wallahs is completely out of hand.
A “government spokesman” said that remuneration for their executives (which is the group I’m addressing here) is a matter for the authorities’ elected councillors. I disagree. Those councillors have a vested interest in keeping sweet those who look after their pay and conditions. More than that, 80% of local authority funding comes from central government and they have no right to wash their hands of the blatant overpayments which are being made to people who, despite their claims that they must be paid top dollar to remain, would have trouble securing anything like such salaries elsewhere.
Yes they certainly do. But the big difference is that their pay comes from a business that has customers and shareholders who can all take their custom and business elsewhere (or, in the case of football, stop watching it entirely). If somebody on low wages is daft enough to shell or £50 or more to get through the gate or pay ridiculous Sky Sport or BT Sport subscriptions to watch footballers earning five times as much in a week as they earn in a year then good luck to them.
Council taxpayers (and general taxpayers) have no such choice. Money is appropriated from them under threat of criminal sanctions to pay for organisations which – in the case of local authorities - largely do not need to exist. One only has to look through the public sector vacancies in the Grauniad to see the sort of waste that prevails and this stretches right to the top. Regardless of how much the Prime Minister earns, it is clear that payments to “Chief Executives” and other senior Town Hall wallahs is completely out of hand.
A “government spokesman” said that remuneration for their executives (which is the group I’m addressing here) is a matter for the authorities’ elected councillors. I disagree. Those councillors have a vested interest in keeping sweet those who look after their pay and conditions. More than that, 80% of local authority funding comes from central government and they have no right to wash their hands of the blatant overpayments which are being made to people who, despite their claims that they must be paid top dollar to remain, would have trouble securing anything like such salaries elsewhere.
^ I take on what you say NJ but managing a large council with a multi £million budget is a job that needs someone with the required level of experience and qualifications. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys!
I can just see the headlines if a council employed a chief executive who lost £millions due to poor judgement and lack of suitable expierience, one bad decision could lose several times the annual salary of employing someone who was up to the job in the first place!
I can just see the headlines if a council employed a chief executive who lost £millions due to poor judgement and lack of suitable expierience, one bad decision could lose several times the annual salary of employing someone who was up to the job in the first place!
Quite so, Eddie. But they should be on Civil Service payscales. They should earn no more than a Permanent Secretary (whose pay I believe extends to around £170k). Many of them in the smaller administrations should earn considerably less than that. Those who believe they can earn two or three times as much as a senior executive in the commercial world should try their luck elsewhere. They may be surprised at their limitations.
As an aside the responsibilities of LAs should be drastically reduced and their functions absorbed into central government. There is no need for every LA to have a department that deals with, say, adult social care or education. Those services should be standard across the country and could be administered centrally with considerable savings. In fact there is very little I can see that needs to have an elected council and a team of highly paid officers in every area. Hence my contention that Local Authorities are largely unnecessary.
As an aside the responsibilities of LAs should be drastically reduced and their functions absorbed into central government. There is no need for every LA to have a department that deals with, say, adult social care or education. Those services should be standard across the country and could be administered centrally with considerable savings. In fact there is very little I can see that needs to have an elected council and a team of highly paid officers in every area. Hence my contention that Local Authorities are largely unnecessary.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.