Top council pay packets must be voted on

[Fittster]

"Local authorities planning to pay employees more than £100,000 will have to seek the approval of councillors in a vote, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has said.

Mr Pickles said this would ensure pay packets were "democracy proofed".

The Communities Secretary intends to amend the Localism Bill which is being discussed in the Commons."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12473979

Why limit it to local government? If the public should have a say on the pay of local politicians shouldn't we have the same level of control over central government pay?

Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 16th February 01:37

[elster]

As he gets to decide on Local Government, that's all.

[EDLT]

The councillors are still going to approve the salaries so they can get them later.

[tank slapper]

This obsession with individual remuneration is entirely unproductive. All the effort moaning about it would be much better used scrutinising what these people and the councils they run actually do, rather than how much money they are paid.

[elster]

EDLT said:

The councillors are still going to approve the salaries so they can get them later.

You wont find many councillors who go on to head the council departments.

[GavinPearson]

tank slapper said:

This obsession with individual remuneration is entirely unproductive. All the effort moaning about it would be much better used scrutinising what these people and the councils they run actually do, rather than how much money they are paid.

No, it is fantastic. Officials will get paid what the councillors think fair and reasonable given the market conditions. And in any case the officials run the councils according to what the councillors want, so they are not formulating policy. And if the councillors start paying the officials loadsamoney then they will be elected out of office.

At last, some semblence of value for council tax.

[thinfourth2]

tank slapper said:

This obsession with individual remuneration is entirely unproductive. All the effort moaning about it would be much better used scrutinising what these people and the councils they run actually do, rather than how much money they are paid.

Its socialism in action everyone must be equal

Can you imagine the outcry if the red ties had brought this in

[wolves_wanderer]

Sorry, are we pro or anti people getting paid the market rate on this thread? I find it hard to keep up.

[klootzak]

wolves_wanderer said:

Sorry, are we pro or anti people getting paid the market rate on this thread? I find it hard to keep up.

Do keep up.

It's easy to work out, this is Pistonheads, so:

Bankers getting paid the market rate = good, just and fair.

Public servants getting paid the market rate = bad, scary and a glittering example of the evils of socialism (© the Daily Mail)

[pilchardthecat]

thinfourth2 said:

tank slapper said:

This obsession with individual remuneration is entirely unproductive. All the effort moaning about it would be much better used scrutinising what these people and the councils they run actually do, rather than how much money they are paid.

Its socialism in action everyone must be equal

Can you imagine the outcry if the red ties had brought this in

It's not socialism. In socialism everyone is equal except the political elite who are more equal than everyone else.

The cost of the state has sky-rocketed in the last ten years, and it hasn't all been spent on delivering new services, it's been spend on wage inflation, unsustainable pension promises and staff bloat. The problem with the cuts is that the people deciding what should be cut ar the ones who benefitted from all of that. So they cut the actual service delivery, rather than their own gravy train. Take this to the nth degree and all you're left with is an expensive beaurocracy leaching off the productive sector whilst providing nothing of value... that's socialism.

[pilchardthecat]

wolves_wanderer said:

Sorry, are we pro or anti people getting paid the market rate on this thread? I find it hard to keep up.

The public sector is one of the biggest players in setting the market rate.... they've spent the last 10 years artificially inflating it by controlling their own remuneration. Private sector wage costs have had to try and keep up. It's one of the main reasons this country is no longer competetive.

[Sticks.]

pilchardthecat said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Sorry, are we pro or anti people getting paid the market rate on this thread? I find it hard to keep up.

The public sector is one of the biggest players in setting the market rate.... they've spent the last 10 years artificially inflating it by controlling their own remuneration. Private sector wage costs have had to try and keep up. It's one of the main reasons this country is no longer competetive.

I think you'll find it's pub sec, or local authority to be specific, has tried to compete with the pri sec bosses' pay levels. There were articles about it in the media a few months back iirc.

[pilchardthecat]

Sticks. said:

pilchardthecat said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Sorry, are we pro or anti people getting paid the market rate on this thread? I find it hard to keep up.

The public sector is one of the biggest players in setting the market rate.... they've spent the last 10 years artificially inflating it by controlling their own remuneration. Private sector wage costs have had to try and keep up. It's one of the main reasons this country is no longer competetive.

I think you'll find it's pub sec, or local authority to be specific, has tried to compete with the pri sec bosses' pay levels. There were articles about it in the media a few months back iirc.

Most of the clowns running logal government wouldn't get half of their current salaries in the private sector, that's if they could find employment at executive level outside the state sector at all. You're not comparing like with like.

And the "media", especially the BBC is rammed to the gunnels with vested interests.

[Sticks.]

pilchardthecat said:

Most of the clowns running logal government wouldn't get half of their current salaries in the private sector, that's if they could find employment at executive level outside the state sector at all. You're not comparing like with like.

And the "media", especially the BBC is rammed to the gunnels with vested interests.

Perhaps I'm lucky then in having had Sir Sandy Bruce Lockhart (RIP) as our county head for so long. I guess on the 'bankers' argument, to get better people they should give them big bonuses, or, as has been said elsewhere here, they'll all migrate etc

BBC questioned whether LAs should aim to compete for top people on the basis of pay packages - must've had a non-commie day just to confuse PH I suppose

[Fittster]

pilchardthecat said:

Sticks. said:

pilchardthecat said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Sorry, are we pro or anti people getting paid the market rate on this thread? I find it hard to keep up.

The public sector is one of the biggest players in setting the market rate.... they've spent the last 10 years artificially inflating it by controlling their own remuneration. Private sector wage costs have had to try and keep up. It's one of the main reasons this country is no longer competetive.

I think you'll find it's pub sec, or local authority to be specific, has tried to compete with the pri sec bosses' pay levels. There were articles about it in the media a few months back iirc.

Most of the clowns running logal government wouldn't get half of their current salaries in the private sector, that's if they could find employment at executive level outside the state sector at all. You're not comparing like with like.

And the "media", especially the BBC is rammed to the gunnels with vested interests.

So if the people doing the job are currently 'clowns' don't we need to increase salaries to attract 'top talent'. If the top talent argument is right when talking about the financial sector why is it not appropriate when looking at other areas of the economy?

[DJC]

Isnt exec pay basically voted on by the Board in private ventures?

This is the equivalent in councils now.

I dont see the problem.

[chimster]

Neither do I just common sense. These guy's pay has got out of control, rein it in, and equally importantly cut the structure get rid of some of the unnecessary roles.

[Marf]

DJC said:

Isnt exec pay basically voted on by the Board in private ventures?

This is the equivalent in councils now.

I dont see the problem.

But they earn more than the PM!!! ~~Stamps feet~~

[DJC]

I have to admit I do have some sympathy with the notion that the highest paid public sector salary in the country such be the PM. That is basically just logical and common sense to me though. PM = CEO = top boss, therefore gets paid the most.

[Marf]

DJC said:

I have to admit I do have some sympathy with the notion that the highest paid public sector salary in the country such be the PM. That is basically just logical and common sense to me though. PM = CEO = top boss, therefore gets paid the most.

Ignoring an ex-PMs earning potential, then perhaps yes. However your average council top bod isn't going to leave his job and have multiple job offers showered at his feet like a PM would, nor will an ex council top bod be able to charge £15k an hour to speak at a function.

Just look at Non-Dom Bliar, or John Major, both have done VERY well for themselves after leaving office.

As such this tabloid war-cry of "But he earns more than the PM" is guff.