Back in December there was a brave announcement from WBC that they are proposing, in an attempt to control their budget for this year, axing twenty senior managers posts. The council suggested that this will save up to £730,000. The cuts seem to have been made possible by combining departments within the council. You may think, as I did that they were at last going to get a handle on the wage bill and not before time perhaps. This week, a look through the Sits Vac in the NWN and there is a two third page advert for staff. Now in fairness and before User gets the hump, of the eight jobs advertised, three possibly four are bottom end jobs but three are in the £30k bracket. They are all for what I see as "new positions". So, if there is a drive to save money and as Mr Rendel suggested, an opportunity to lower council tax, what is happening here. One of the positions advertised is for a fourth person to join the Shaw House team,(Visitor Services Officer) a £20k job. So that means that just to keep Shaw House going, and not including the registrar sevices the cost to the taxpayer must be in excess of £90,000. Is that covered by the income for that establishment I wonder. I leave you to read the various job descriptions but whichever wordsmith generates them for WBC he/she has certainly used a lot of column inches with excessively wordy adverts.
One of the positions advertised is for a fourth person to join the Shaw House team,(Visitor Services Officer) a £20k job. So that means that just to keep Shaw House going, and not including the registrar sevices the cost to the taxpayer must be in excess of £90,000. Is that covered by the income for that establishment I wonder.
Whilst I am sure that Shaw House is way, way short of raising its predicted income from paying visitors, they do let out rooms for meetings, apparently quite successfully - they will need staff to run that side of the business. I would guess that some of the team are part timers and on way less than £20k.
Seems on the cards if it hasn't started already. People want to pay less towards local services so they have more for themselves.
Not really - the Government is virtually bankrupt, so must cut spending. Spending on local government will be slashed along with every other area.
Add to this a General Election in which the main parties are competing to be the most ruthless cutters and neither is going to raise taxes to recoup the billions spent saving the banking system.
I suppose people will actually be paying more and getting less - the difference going into paying of our national debt.
People want to pay less towards local services so they have more for themselves.
I'm not sure that is the case as we continue to get annual increases in the rates which are above inflation year by year. Most of us, just grin and bare it but nevertheless the council has a duty to spend the money they collect wisely. What we now see, is WBC suggesting that it can save us money by reorganising the workforce and it is right and proper that they do this. My original point in this thread was that they seem to have lost the plot in terms of staff costs judging by the new posts that are being created.
Your suggestion that people want more money for themselves, is probably correct but I sense that you are posting it in a negative way and your next post will refer to, as you have done in the past, a me me me attitude. I see it as a neccesity to conserve as much of the wage packet as we can to maintain a decent standard of living. We should therefore expect our council to understand this and not waste our money either on surplus staff or egoistical and inappropriate projects.
It would be interesting to see how many council, local and county, employee's there are per 1000 capita of population in the area's they serve now, as opposed to 10, 20, 30, etc year's ago.
I wonder if there are any published statistic's available!
It would be interesting to see how many council, local and county, employee's there are per 1000 capita of population in the area's they serve now, as opposed to 10, 20, 30, etc year's ago.
I wonder if there are any published statistic's available!
The numbers would be difficult to understand. Two reasons, firstly that there have been several changes of boundaries and authority The other is that WBC have outsourced a large number of the jobs to private contractor so the figures woul probably look good for that reason.
I'm not sure that is the case as we continue to get annual increases in the rates which are above inflation year by year. Most of us, just grin and bare it but nevertheless the council has a duty to spend the money they collect wisely. What we now see, is WBC suggesting that it can save us money by reorganising the workforce and it is right and proper that they do this. My original point in this thread was that they seem to have lost the plot in terms of staff costs judging by the new posts that are being created.
Your suggestion that people want more money for themselves, is probably correct but I sense that you are posting it in a negative way and your next post will refer to, as you have done in the past, a me me me attitude. I see it as a neccesity to conserve as much of the wage packet as we can to maintain a decent standard of living. We should therefore expect our council to understand this and not waste our money either on surplus staff or egoistical and inappropriate projects.
As far as I know their staff wages are largely determined by an external independent organisation and that goes for all councils.
Spending is always likely to increase above the rate of inflation given the ever increasing demand on social services by our ageing population. What would you have them do, close their doors once spending hits the rate of inflation, you seem sensible so I doubt you would.
Unfortunately it's a fact of life from now on that it's going to cost the (relatively) young more to look after the old in the future.
As far as I know their staff wages are largely determined by an external independent organisation and that goes for all councils.
Spending is always likely to increase above the rate of inflation given the ever increasing demand on social services by our ageing population. What would you have them do, close their doors once spending hits the rate of inflation, you seem sensible so I doubt you would.
Unfortunately it's a fact of life from now on that it's going to cost the (relatively) young more to look after the old in the future.
So are you saying the only area to have an increase in expenditure (above inflation) is the care for the elderly???
It would be interesting to see how many council, local and county, employee's there are per 1000 capita of population in the area's they serve now, as opposed to 10, 20, 30, etc year's ago.
I wonder if there are any published statistic's available!
Fair bit of published information. Including a very good history of the first Berkshire County Council. In the tight economic conditions of the pre war period, the then Chairman's policy was 'we will do what we must and leave what we may'. A couple of examples illustrate the approach. Moulsford Asylum kitchens needed a couple of carving knives; the elected chair of the committee concerned saw the budget, then purchased a pair in a local second hand shop for half the price. The Council did not pay against the national pay scales; a vacancy for Chief Medical Officer was 'blacked' by the Union, but they still managed to recruit and a very successful one. Lessons for today!
The numbers would be difficult to understand. Two reasons, firstly that there have been several changes of boundaries and authority The other is that WBC have outsourced a large number of the jobs to private contractor so the figures woul probably look good for that reason.
Very true. There's actually far fewer outsourced jobs than 5 years ago though.
Male
Logged
