Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Sheffield Council 270 Council Jobs Axed As Chief Takes Pay Cut

Recommended Posts

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/270_council_jobs_axed_as_chief_takes_pay_cut_1_3037050

SHEFFIELD Council has announced 270 jobs will be axed including highly-paid management posts and chief executive John Mothersole will take a wage cut as the authority implements £215 million of cuts.

But the number of redundancies is far less than feared - the GMB trade union having predicted up to 2,000 of the council’s 13,500 workforce could go.

Other large authorities have announced much heavier job losses, including 2,000 at Manchester City Council and 1,500 at Liverpool City Council.

Chief executive John Mothersole is to give up five per cent of his £184,588 salary, which has already been frozen for the last two years.

Around 300 more staff have volunteered for redundancy and 161 empty posts have not been filled, meaning the workforce is set to be reduced by 731 in total.

The council has notified the Government 800 jobs will be lost but officers say the higher number is a contingency as an “uppermost limit”.

And yet even with the paycut he still earns more than the PM.

For his salary I'd like to know what value he's bringing apart from allowing large queues to form outside polling stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/270_council_jobs_axed_as_chief_takes_pay_cut_1_3037050

And yet even with the paycut he still earns more than the PM.

For his salary I'd like to know what value he's bringing apart from allowing large queues to form outside polling stations.

He should be taking 50% to get to a more realistic salary then taking 5% at least off that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should be taking 50% to get to a more realistic salary then taking 5% at least off that.

Agreed, at £90k a year it would be a pretty hefty salary for Sheffield, at some 4x average wage.

The pay to these people has got well out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be OK as long as that was 5% per year over 5 years.

And then when these jobs are re-advertised, they don't add 50% to attract "the right people", but drop it by 25%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5% cut...what about the 50 top level managers under him?

Cut ALL public purse salaries over 25K by 50% above the 25K.

Where can I get this heard better?

Im sure the public mood is ready for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5%? Pfft!

BTW, why does the public sector talk about frozen pay being something extraordinary? Many a private sector job is lucky to see any pay rise every year. These people don't know how good they have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a nurse in Sheffield be paid less than a nurse in London in receipt of London weighting and potentially housing benefits?

Because the cost of living in London is so much greater.

Why do you think many companies moved their call centres to Wales etc ? It wasn't for the weather. It's because labour is cheaper, because the cost of living is lower.

Edited by exiges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the cost of living in London is so much greater.

Why do you think many companies moved their call centres to Wales etc ? It wasn't for the weather. It's because labour is cheaper, because the cost of living is lower.

and you dont recognise the self fulfilling subsidy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that he should be paid less for doing the same job because it is based in Sheffield?

Interesting development that I keep hearing that wages should be more 'local'.

I don't see taxes being proposed to be more local though.

Things like London weighting and housing benefit have had the effect of transferring vast amounts of resources invisibly to the South East on the basis of 'affordability' whilst it is claimed the transfer payments go all the other way.

Why should a nurse in Sheffield be paid less than a nurse in London in receipt of London weighting and potentially housing benefits?

reverse argument again.

If wages were the same everywhere, costs of labour would be the same everywhere, spending power the same everywhere.

Adding a premium to London costs simply puts up costs of labour in London, which demands higher wages, which adds to costs in London which....

However, the head of any borough has the same job providing the same services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should be taking 50% to get to a more realistic salary then taking 5% at least off that.

The problem is that CE's are legally qualified and as such need to be seen as part of the pay structure that applies to that trade.It wouldn't be regarded as a massive salary for a solicitor in private practice where any kind of paper shuffling pox doctor's clerk will be trousering £100K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is not whether people should be paid according to the local market - but whether the costs should also be paid for by the local market.

If you have one, you should have the other. That way, people really would think about moving certain roles to cheaper areas and we would see some real movement and evening out.

But instead we subsidise high expense.

evening out?

Im game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that CE's are legally qualified and as such need to be seen as part of the pay structure that applies to that trade.It wouldn't be regarded as a massive salary for a solicitor in private practice where any kind of paper shuffling pox doctor's clerk will be trousering £100K.

You mean he's a solicitor? Or are you saying there's a professional qualification that allows you to be a CE of a council. If so can you tell me where I can apply to do the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the cost of living in London is so much greater.

Why do you think many companies moved their call centres to Wales etc ? It wasn't for the weather. It's because labour is cheaper, because the cost of living is lower.

...in many ways the cost of living in London is lower than other parts of the UK....CT and water rates are far cheaper than many parts of the country....eating out is cheaper, there is greater competition for many products and services that brings the prices down...bus fares in London are much cheaper than many bus services, also because many things are close by not so much need to travel so saving fuel........the only thing that costs, is housing, so if you own outright, living in London is cheaper, but that does not mean the quality of life is better. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that he should be paid less for doing the same job because it is based in Sheffield?

Interesting development that I keep hearing that wages should be more 'local'.

I don't see taxes being proposed to be more local though.

Things like London weighting and housing benefit have had the effect of transferring vast amounts of resources invisibly to the South East on the basis of 'affordability' whilst it is claimed the transfer payments go all the other way.

Why should a nurse in Sheffield be paid less than a nurse in London in receipt of London weighting and potentially housing benefits?

People on lower wages, pay less tax*. Therefore, the market dictates, by region, how much tax is paid. The fact that public sector jobs do not reflect this reality is the anomaly, not the other way around.

IMO, much unemployment could be reduced, by allowing the market to set salaries in the public sector, just as it does in the private sector. An engineer in Yorkshire does not earn the same as an engineer in Greater London. Neither should nurses, teaches, civil servants etc.

* VAT could be argued to be otherwise, but lower wages => lower prices in shops, so there is a degree of scaling, even with VAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean he's a solicitor? Or are you saying there's a professional qualification that allows you to be a CE of a council. If so can you tell me where I can apply to do the course.

As far as I am aware legal qualifications are the benchmark for CE's of councils.Certainly when I was a councillor in the 80's and 90's our CE was a qualified solicitor. And that was a District Council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/270_council_jobs_axed_as_chief_takes_pay_cut_1_3037050

And yet even with the paycut he still earns more than the PM.

For his salary I'd like to know what value he's bringing apart from allowing large queues to form outside polling stations.

An insult to his constituents. He will simply take out extra "expenses" to make up for the loss. TBH, in an age of all in it together austerity, I would reduce his salary to £70k. Anything over £100k is corruption. Especially in Sheffield which is not leafy Surrey where the average semi goes for £400k .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept your point about tax - except perhaps in definition.

Lord Turner likens much of London's financial services as essentially a 'tax' on the rest of the economy. So effectively a tax is paid in two ways to the centre - prices for financial services, and higher benefits such as London weighting and housing benefit...but one comes back in the form of equal wages for equal output (such as in the nurse instance). Many of the functions cannot just be relocated which obviates any benefit from regional wages structures.

Would London like to have its Council offices and 'Parliament' relocated to a cheaper part of the country. I say, why not?

Why not indeed? I suppose it's tradition which keeps so many things in London. As it's the most densely populated area, I suppose there is merit in parliament being there.

The reason I posted the above though, is because of the distorting effects it has on regions far from London. Here in Northern Ireland, public sector jobs swamp private sector jobs, not only in terms of quantity, but also in terms of pay. How can the private sector possibly compete when the public sector pays well over the market rate?

In NI, the best minds head to the public sector. This starves the private sector of talent. Worse still, these areas should be the ones where manufacturing should be doing well - cheaper wages and building costs, should bring the production costs down. IMO, throwing tax payers' money (likely from the productive SE England) at the public sector doesn't help the private sector, it harms it. Wealth needs to be generated from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Another aspect is that we have loads of unemployed teachers here. In a free market, the price of a teacher would fall with supply. Instead, we have a fixed price, which means more crowded class rooms and more teachers out of work. Why don't we have progressively smaller classes and smaller teacher wages, until equilibrium is reached? I'm sure this same problem occurs in other segments, where the wage scales are decided centrally - it makes no sense.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wage for any job should be the amount of money it takes to get a suitable person to do the job properly, and not a penny more. Sometimes it may be worth paying a bit more than the absolute minimum that person would accept if it makes them more productive because they are happier, more loyal etc. Wages should not be set according to the local cost of living or how many years it takes to train for the job.

The labour market is not that different to the property market. Advertise the position, see if anybody suitable applies, if not then raise the wage and try again. You will soon find out what the 'going rate' for the job is.

Presumably in towns where the cost of living is lower, potential applicants would be willing to accept a lower wage because they can get the same quality of life for less money. The burden should be on local schools/hospitals/councils to manage their budgets properly and find out what the local going rate is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High paid and sometimes overpaid jobs paid for by taxpayers need to be scrutinised, broken down, looked at for time management, work measurement, compare work undertaken for similar jobs and responsibilities........we all like to have value for our hard earned money...do some of these people grant themselves their own pay rises? who is accountable for their worth? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that he should be paid less for doing the same job because it is based in Sheffield?

Interesting development that I keep hearing that wages should be more 'local'.

I don't see taxes being proposed to be more local though.

Things like London weighting and housing benefit have had the effect of transferring vast amounts of resources invisibly to the South East on the basis of 'affordability' whilst it is claimed the transfer payments go all the other way.

Why should a nurse in Sheffield be paid less than a nurse in London in receipt of London weighting and potentially housing benefits?

Yes good points. Nurses should make the same all over Britain, and housing benefit should be the same. It should be done to spread the wealth around the country, and because on a fundamental level a nurse is adding the saem value whether in Sheffield or London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes good points. Nurses should make the same all over Britain, and housing benefit should be the same. It should be done to spread the wealth around the country, and because on a fundamental level a nurse is adding the saem value whether in Sheffield or London.

All else being equal, a nurse in Newcastle should be paid whatever it costs to keep her in the job, and a nurse in London should be paid whatever it takes to keep him in the job. Probably in London this number will have to be higher, otherwise nurses will tend to leave London to get jobs in places where the cost of living is lower.

If you moved from London to Newcastle, would you employ plumbers there at the London rate to help spread the wealth around? Of course not, you just pay the going rate. Why should the state be any less economical, just because it's taxpayer money?

Let markets work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some posters seem to be saying that public sector pay is different according to where you are, whereas others are saying it's the same across the country - who's right?

Edited by shipbuilder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not indeed? I suppose it's tradition which keeps so many things in London. As it's the most densely populated area, I suppose there is merit in parliament being there.

The reason I posted the above though, is because of the distorting effects it has on regions far from London. Here in Northern Ireland, public sector jobs swamp private sector jobs, not only in terms of quantity, but also in terms of pay. How can the private sector possibly compete when the public sector pays well over the market rate?

In NI, the best minds head to the public sector. This starves the private sector of talent. Worse still, these areas should be the ones where manufacturing should be doing well - cheaper wages and building costs, should bring the production costs down. IMO, throwing tax payers' money (likely from the productive SE England) at the public sector doesn't help the private sector, it harms it. Wealth needs to be generated from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Another aspect is that we have loads of unemployed teachers here. In a free market, the price of a teacher would fall with supply. Instead, we have a fixed price, which means more crowded class rooms and more teachers out of work. Why don't we have progressively smaller classes and smaller teacher wages, until equilibrium is reached? I'm sure this same problem occurs in other segments, where the wage scales are decided centrally - it makes no sense.

I agree that wages should be set by the market, but I wasn't aware that teacher's pay here was set centrally - are you sure? I thought the education boards or schools set it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The wage for any job should be the amount of money it takes to get a suitable person to do the job properly, and not a penny more.

I'll agree that you are suitable if you agree to do the same for me next time around. Now...what shall we decide our pay rate is? :D

Oh- and while we're at it better chuck a few references to 'rare talent' and 'global marketplace' about- don't want the proles getting all excited about our private arrangements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that wages should be set by the market, but I wasn't aware that teacher's pay here was set centrally - are you sure? I thought the education boards or schools set it.

There are pay scales, set by the number of years you have been teaching for. You can't volunteer to decrease your wage and the schools can't deviate from the pay scales (as far as I'm aware).

My wife is a teacher, who has been doing supply work for the 3 years since we moved back to her home country. Incidentally, she agrees that it's a daft system too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.