Council staff 'under attack' (From Worcester News)

Even then the terms and conditions are much better than in the private sector.

Too little, too late.

Blimey, where do I apply for one of these Council jobs. They get way more holiday than I do and I've worked for the same firm for 25 years.

No wonder our Council tax is so high.

I wish i had 30 odd days' holiday. I wish i had sick pay other than statutory. I wish i had a Christmas bonus. There again, i work in the 'real' world, the private sector!

They also get incredibly generous maternity benefits.

Poor old Council workers, only allowed 6 weeks paid holiday a year and only receiving 90% of their salary for sick pay. They should go on strike I say, bring the capitalist pigs to their knees

I wonder if the 21days starting holiday includes bank holidays? Even so, this is very generous compared to the private sector.
Also, the sick pay issue is the sick pay paid for a certain length of time or indefinately? The statement says "reduced" to 90% of the normal pay? In the private sector most employees only get SSP.
It's time the public sector started to get real and live in the real world. Lot's of people and companies have had to make sacrificies in these difficult times. Share the load public sector.

It's about time these council workers grew up and faced reality. Everyone has to make cut backs, why do they feel that they are so special and important that they should be exempt from doing so. The sick days/pay and holidays are beyond generous - and I have been told by various people who used to work in the private sector and are now employed in council positions that they work slower and produce less in a week than they are used to doing because the general pace is so incredibly slow. Stop bemoaning your situation because it's (even with cuts) bloody fantastic compared to the private sector!!!

It is unfortunate, divisive and counter productive to reduce this argument to a public vs private sector squabble. It is nothing of the kind.

This is about ordinary people paying the price for a crisis they have not created. In that sense, uninformed comment about cushy public sector jobs or how the private sector is tougher, or living in the real world, add no value to the debate, are wide of the truth, inaccurate and miss the main point.

Workers in both sectors are under attack and struggling to make ends meet. Both are paying the price for the Banker's excess thanks to a lack of proper and effective regulation and a Government bailout which converted a private sector problem into a public sector one, mainly now in local government it seems as a lot of people see it as a 'soft' target and for the Tory Party it can realise its ideological aims, in which the rich get off virtually scott free.

Some facts here: Since 2010, over 200,000 jobs have gone in local government across the country. In Worcestershire that amounts to nearly 1,000 jobs with more to go following a failing Government asuterity programme that will mean more cuts. With the local government pay freeze, staff have had a real terms 13% cut in pay. Many local authorities have added to this with local cuts in terms and conditions, like Worcestershire and now Worcester City. This adds to the 13% pay cut. In Worcestershire it amounts to another 1.2% and for some in Worcester City it could be up to 5% for some. By 2015 that cut will amount to 25% of pay in real terms for local government workers in a time of rising prices - the majority (70%) of whom are women and part time. That is hardly fair is it?

Services will suffer and are suffering. Let's not forget that even before 2010, local councils, and those across the country, were shedding staff and cutting budgets.

Dumbing everything down to the lowest level on pay and terms and conditions solves nothing and helps no-one. The real blame lies at the door of Government and the banks. Attacking workers rights, whichever sector they work in, is not the answer.

However, all workers getting organised and demanding from Government that the rich pay their fair share would be a start and help all of us feel we really are 'all in this together'.

Wow, you really fancy yourself S Brown.

If they don't like the terms and conditions then get a job where they do like the terms and conditions, simples.

The country has been living on borrowed money for too long and providing services that it can't afford. 13 years of Labour and your namesake created a bloated civil service and local government that Labour depended upon to vote for them, in effect a client state. The chickens are coming home to roost. If we can't afford it we can't have it.

What Stephen Brown said.

The politicians, bankers and bosses would love the remarks of most on here - get the plebs fighting amongst themselves and they'll be too busy to blame the ones who are really responsible.

Oh, and all workers, both private and public, are entitled to 20 days holiday plus 8 bank holidays, regardless of length of service.

So Brummagem Bertie, I assume then the council workers start at 21 days plus 8 days bank holiday days = 29 days. It states that then raises to 34 days which I must also assume you add the 8 days holiday to? So 42 days holiday in the year? 2 months in a year off. Nice if you can get it.

It's obvious to anyone that most public sector workers are overpaid and underworked and even with up to 34 days holiday many seem to think it's acceptable to "throw a sickie" to add a few more days. As a country we really need to just get rid of the financial burden that the bloated public sector has become.
Of course it's best to just ignore the few deluded left wing fools who thinks it's all the fault of the bankers/rich/4x4 drivers/those who went to Eton etc. There are always people who prefer to sit on their awse and blame everyone else rather than doing what the majority of us are, working hard to get the country back on it's feet after it was badly damaged by the mad one-eyed Scotsman.

Stephen Brown wrote:
It is unfortunate, divisive and counter productive to reduce this argument to a public vs private sector squabble. It is nothing of the kind.

This is about ordinary people paying the price for a crisis they have not created. In that sense, uninformed comment about cushy public sector jobs or how the private sector is tougher, or living in the real world, add no value to the debate, are wide of the truth, inaccurate and miss the main point.

Workers in both sectors are under attack and struggling to make ends meet. Both are paying the price for the Banker's excess thanks to a lack of proper and effective regulation and a Government bailout which converted a private sector problem into a public sector one, mainly now in local government it seems as a lot of people see it as a 'soft' target and for the Tory Party it can realise its ideological aims, in which the rich get off virtually scott free.

Some facts here: Since 2010, over 200,000 jobs have gone in local government across the country. In Worcestershire that amounts to nearly 1,000 jobs with more to go following a failing Government asuterity programme that will mean more cuts. With the local government pay freeze, staff have had a real terms 13% cut in pay. Many local authorities have added to this with local cuts in terms and conditions, like Worcestershire and now Worcester City. This adds to the 13% pay cut. In Worcestershire it amounts to another 1.2% and for some in Worcester City it could be up to 5% for some. By 2015 that cut will amount to 25% of pay in real terms for local government workers in a time of rising prices - the majority (70%) of whom are women and part time. That is hardly fair is it?

Services will suffer and are suffering. Let's not forget that even before 2010, local councils, and those across the country, were shedding staff and cutting budgets.

Dumbing everything down to the lowest level on pay and terms and conditions solves nothing and helps no-one. The real blame lies at the door of Government and the banks. Attacking workers rights, whichever sector they work in, is not the answer.

However, all workers getting organised and demanding from Government that the rich pay their fair share would be a start and help all of us feel we really are 'all in this together'.

Lesson One - be concise.

Lesson Two - you're wrong. The banks are part of the problem, but so was the massive expansion of the public sector, the growth of welfare dependency, and mass immigration.

The 'blame the banks thing' is wearing very thin, and doesn't cut much ice any more. Hence the hardening of social attitudes on issues like immigration and welfare reform, and the distinct lack of sympathy with the public sector.

Brummagem Bertie wrote:
What Stephen Brown said.

The politicians, bankers and bosses would love the remarks of most on here - get the plebs fighting amongst themselves and they'll be too busy to blame the ones who are really responsible.

Oh, and all workers, both private and public, are entitled to 20 days holiday plus 8 bank holidays, regardless of length of service.

Those who are really responsible?

That would be the banks to a certain extent, but then to a very large extent those involved in the massive expansion of the public sector.

Especially those in the public sector doing what they know to be non-jobs. Diversity co-ordinators. The people involved in Council propaganda mags.

Anyone involved in the likes of the South Worcs Destruction Plan.

And of course, let's not forget local govt. absenteeism rates.

Or the wages of the likes of Trish Haines, or that Chief Fire Officer who just won a load of compo...

All sections of public sector workers have for years had benefits that the private sector have not had and funded by the local tax payer through their council tax. Pensions and early retirement being a part of this which we all also fund. I am basically a socialist but this country has let sections of workers have too many bonuses were other members of their community have had less. A great imbalance has set itself on this land, an imbalance that now is exacerbated by increased immigrants from commonwealth and EU countries taking advantage of our social system. This imbalance must be addressed....but I admit I do not know the answer but I see the outcome with social services under pressure, schools under pressure and the health service under pressure. Don't blame all this on the previous government's spending, but look within, at the way in general we hand out to ourselves and to others!!

moreteavicar - nonsense!
thatchers destruction of the manufacturing base and deregulation of the banks started all of this in her assault on working people and tying them into a consumer driven agenda. the cost was a welfare system and govt jobs to prevent mass riots. labour did not help resolve this imbalance i agree but the usual right wing tosh about immigration and the welfare state and now the public sector being to blame is a total red herring and means you fail or refuse to understand whats going on here. why not blame a cat for being a cat while your at it?

Oh, how my heart bleeds for these poor council workers! When are these workers going to wake up and enter the real world?!!! I am sick to the back teeth hearing the sob stories emanating from council workers, about how poorly they are treated and how not so well off they claim to be.

These proposals will still see them better off than people in the private sector, many of whom do not get sick pay, do not have more than 20 days holiday, haven't had a pay rise for years and do not even have salaries that come close to equivalent positions in councils. And yet there is no mention about whether their bonuses and other benefits will be affected.

Council workers should be grateful they even have a job, yet they are on a different planet, totally oblivious to the fact that so many people out there do not have jobs, and those that do work a **** sight harder and more efficiently, yet they struggle to make ends meet at home, often having to make difficult decisions about their lifestyle and circumstances. So while many people will struggle to enjoy Christmas, council workers will be celebrating to the hilt as they tuck in to their turkey and trimmings. And the only gravy that will be around if the gravy train called the council.

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Stephen Brown wrote:
It is unfortunate, divisive and counter productive to reduce this argument to a public vs private sector squabble. It is nothing of the kind.

This is about ordinary people paying the price for a crisis they have not created. In that sense, uninformed comment about cushy public sector jobs or how the private sector is tougher, or living in the real world, add no value to the debate, are wide of the truth, inaccurate and miss the main point.

Workers in both sectors are under attack and struggling to make ends meet. Both are paying the price for the Banker's excess thanks to a lack of proper and effective regulation and a Government bailout which converted a private sector problem into a public sector one, mainly now in local government it seems as a lot of people see it as a 'soft' target and for the Tory Party it can realise its ideological aims, in which the rich get off virtually scott free.

Some facts here: Since 2010, over 200,000 jobs have gone in local government across the country. In Worcestershire that amounts to nearly 1,000 jobs with more to go following a failing Government asuterity programme that will mean more cuts. With the local government pay freeze, staff have had a real terms 13% cut in pay. Many local authorities have added to this with local cuts in terms and conditions, like Worcestershire and now Worcester City. This adds to the 13% pay cut. In Worcestershire it amounts to another 1.2% and for some in Worcester City it could be up to 5% for some. By 2015 that cut will amount to 25% of pay in real terms for local government workers in a time of rising prices - the majority (70%) of whom are women and part time. That is hardly fair is it?

Services will suffer and are suffering. Let's not forget that even before 2010, local councils, and those across the country, were shedding staff and cutting budgets.

Dumbing everything down to the lowest level on pay and terms and conditions solves nothing and helps no-one. The real blame lies at the door of Government and the banks. Attacking workers rights, whichever sector they work in, is not the answer.

However, all workers getting organised and demanding from Government that the rich pay their fair share would be a start and help all of us feel we really are 'all in this together'.

Lesson One - be concise.

Lesson Two - you're wrong. The banks are part of the problem, but so was the massive expansion of the public sector, the growth of welfare dependency, and mass immigration.

The 'blame the banks thing' is wearing very thin, and doesn't cut much ice any more. Hence the hardening of social attitudes on issues like immigration and welfare reform, and the distinct lack of sympathy with the public sector.

I agree, while the banks played their part, council workers were more culpable as for years they had gold plated pensions which are not sustainable and cannot continue to be met by the tax payer. If the banking crisis did not occur, we would not have known how much council workers were milking the system.

Creating articles about councils to create such ill-feeling and hatred towards council staff must be high on Worcester News' agenda as there is at least one such story every week now.

Don t forget that as they cut back on public sector workers poor old Unison gets less funding from subs and so they have to make cutbacks too! Should think that keeps them extra motivated to keep the public sector workers in their comfy zone.I live with a council worker and they get full pay for six months on the sick and half pay for the next six months ,great for those that can get it ! Many people would be pleased to have the option of 10 days overtime a year ! especially with a bonus attatched.Maybe they are so well paid that the extra money is not needed.

Mary79 your right, and as usual the normal council bashers and i'm alright jack's are on here, if there so envious of the council workers why have they not tried to get a job there?

Weather anyone likes it or not we need a council and its services and someone has to work there, would you do a bin mans job, i would not ? It is about time the top end of the council were weeded out as you really should read there perks, yet no one seems to think much about that, its always bash the workers.

Lizzie R wrote:
Creating articles about councils to create such ill-feeling and hatred towards council staff must be high on Worcester News' agenda as there is at least one such story every week now.

I note you are not disputing the facts, just resenting the inference drawn by readers when they see them.

Given that the article is about council being 'under attack', it would appear to be sympathetic.

It's the public that's not quite so understanding of some of the things in the article.

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Lizzie R wrote:
Creating articles about councils to create such ill-feeling and hatred towards council staff must be high on Worcester News' agenda as there is at least one such story every week now.

I note you are not disputing the facts, just resenting the inference drawn by readers when they see them.

Given that the article is about council being 'under attack', it would appear to be sympathetic.

It's the public that's not quite so understanding of some of the things in the article.

True - the article does seem very sympathetic to council workers, its the publics comments that are unsympathetic.

Society is unsympathetic when it thinks certain areas of society 'are not in it together'

Business making huge profits
Business not paying fair tax
MPs fiddling expenses
MPs riding first class
Public sector pensions
Public sector pay & conditions
Welfare State high value payments
Welfare State claimants
Bankers
Pensioners high pension levels
Higher rate tax payers
Big house owners
Big car owners

In fact society is just unsympathetic

I see the old chestnut about gold plated pensions has been raised.
Average council pension is £4,200, falling to £2,800 for women workers, who make up the majority of council workers. The average is inflated by teachers and other highly paid professionals.
The average private sector pension is about £5,800.
A pension of £2,800 per annum is just over £50 per week. That's just enough to mean that the recipient isn't eligible to claim pension credit, council tax benefit, etc.
Whilst most people in the private sector do not pay into a pension that just means that taxpayers are funding their retirement via pensioner benefits and the minimum income guarantee. Given that 80% of workers are employed in the private sector, the burden of funding the retirements of private sector workers is vastly greater than council workers.

Brummagem Bertie wrote:
I see the old chestnut about gold plated pensions has been raised.
Average council pension is £4,200, falling to £2,800 for women workers, who make up the majority of council workers. The average is inflated by teachers and other highly paid professionals.
The average private sector pension is about £5,800.
A pension of £2,800 per annum is just over £50 per week. That's just enough to mean that the recipient isn't eligible to claim pension credit, council tax benefit, etc.
Whilst most people in the private sector do not pay into a pension that just means that taxpayers are funding their retirement via pensioner benefits and the minimum income guarantee. Given that 80% of workers are employed in the private sector, the burden of funding the retirements of private sector workers is vastly greater than council workers.

Brummagem Bertie, what a stupid comment! You have just said most private sector workers do not pay into a pension fund so it is the taxpayers paying their pensions! Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are tax payers. Also these tax payers pay the majority of the public sector pensions which, on average as you seem to like to say, are a lot higher than those in the private sector. So the tax payer is paying more of their tax money to public sector pensions than to private sector pensions.

Sadly, this debate shows that we have fallen into the trap set by the government of creating a private versus public sector argument to assist them in their desire to keep down pay and conditions for all.

It deflects attention from the real villains of the piece - the bankers and senior executives (mainly private but, yes, some public too) who are paid mega salaries (with pensions to match) and who are the very people who have got us into this financial mess in the first place. They are just laughing at the rest of us arguing over who has the best maternity leave, sick pay etc. and forgetting that many who have the worst jobs in society are, and will remain, the lowest paid.

Ha ha the old Council bashing fools are back that make no connection between money and service.

Moan moan about the service then state council workers should be paid 50p a week which is bound to attract boundless talent to drive forward the service. The old "these people should do if for free, they are privledged to serve me brigade."

Cutting salaries and wages is a temporary sticky plaster which will only align conditions with private companies. In some ways good.

Privitise it, incentivise performance by delivering commercial benefit and value for money which is what most whingers are asking for..............oh hang on a minute, it can be added to the Energy Companies and Rail Companies then and put on that whinge list....

good point vox populi. the cost to us of running a privatised rail industry is 4 times that it was in real terms as a nationalised network. value for money indeed. we all know what's happened to our energy bills and energy security since privatisation. more value for money eh? yet amazingly there are still those who think privatisation works....well it does...for the companies concerned making megabucks but its no good for us or those working for them. i love a good whinge.

Mary, I actually disagree with you.

It's all about who do you trust to deliver value for money to you as a customer?
A well run commercial entity that watches every penny or a government programme when to be fair they have a pretty poor track record!

My real point is you are damned if you do and damned if you dont! There will always be whingers with their opinions :-)

I worked in the private sector for over 40 years during which time I had:-
30 days holiday + bank holidays per year.
BUPA membership for myself and family.
Full pay when off sick for 39 weeks plus 26 weeks at half pay.
Final salary pension scheme.
Death benefit equal to 4 years salary.
Company car
Expense account
Allowed to travel first class on train and business class on airlines.
So life can be good or better in the private sector. In fact I feel sorry for those people who have to work in the public sector because of the constraints they work under.

Omicron I suspect your were a company Director (as am I). Not many people reach that level of benefits. Even by industry standards those are excessive benefits. Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up ;)

then sorry vox pupuli I fail to understand your point as it is too broad brushed. define 'customer'. its quite evident that value for money is sadly lacking in both rail and energy as either taxpayers or consumers or both at the same time are being fleeced. i think there is a world of difference between essential services and consumer services but politicians of all parties have deliberately blurred the distinction to suit personal or ideological agendas and too many peope have bought into that lie equalling a mess resulting in a social and economic crisis. whats worse is that the same thinking that got us here is being used as a vehicle to get us out of it and the penny still hasnt dropped.

marksmith0264 wrote:
Omicron I suspect your were a company Director (as am I). Not many people reach that level of benefits. Even by industry standards those are excessive benefits. Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up ;)

If Omicron's employers see fit to pay these benefits, that's their business surely. Perhaps they feel the need to offer these Ts and Cs to attract a decent calibre of staff. I would have thought that a company director would be able to take that on board.

Both the rail network and energy network were in an awful state when they were sold off. All caused by a nice cheap service provided with no investment in them.

It's a big game I am afraid. These companies now invest billions causing your prices to go up driven by government policy which they are forced to abide by. At the same time act as a convenient scapegoat to blame. If people read some more enlightening literature rather than news rags they would discover such gems as real government reports showing your energy supplier makes between 2 and 5% profit a year. Greedy? I wouldn't want to run one, would you?

I cant remember what the original subject was now , I have been enjoying this debate though . Just a quick personal observation . In 1979 the union power was at its height . Every body was suffering from inflation in the high teens and Red Robbo was in control at BL . Mrs T was elected as the anything but the current chaos alternative. The agenda included smashing unions breaking monopolies and privatisation essentially to break up the power of the unions , a sort of divide and conquer policy . The consequences are still being felt . There is still too little investment in infrastructure . The NHS is an untouchable expense that no other country in the world can afford but we have to ,we still have an overmanned and overpaid civil service that creates work to keep themselves employed . Me ? Well I have seen the Blair alternative and it wasnt nice, socialism is bankrupt but what alternative is there atm ?

its a 'big game' alright and its about huge private and global monopolies ruling everything we do thats what capitalism is about ultimately = control of the system. and thats got nothing to do with information from news rags or from anything you will read in government reports either which favour the views of the prevailing ruling elite. the profit margins may be 'small' but thats the industry and turnover margins and in the case of centrica last year a profit of £2.4billion is not an insignificant amount of money - and the percentages for some are going up. it just reinforces to me that this is not a game for speculation and profit as energy is essential for our national security and wellbeing - especially when everyone is facing a hit in their income. such company profits rising and their cash in the bank on the up while the rest of us struggle is patently unfair. so please excuse me if my heart doesnt bleed for them.
on the issue of socialism - what socialism? from blair? hahahah. we've never had it. we live in a capitalist economy end of.
and power is relative. the regular rich suspects were still making shed loads of money even at the height of this 'union power' and where are we now? the gap between rich and poor is widening. so yes thatcher,blair and co were a great success weren't they?! thats why we are being forced to endure international austerity to further drive the capitalist agenda and thats why these council workers (the original story) are having to pay the price and no longer have the bottle to fight as i think they will just take the hit and then whinge about it rather than do anything about the situation being forced on them.

The Doosra wrote:

marksmith0264 wrote:
Omicron I suspect your were a company Director (as am I). Not many people reach that level of benefits. Even by industry standards those are excessive benefits. Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up ;)

If Omicron's employers see fit to pay these benefits, that's their business surely. Perhaps they feel the need to offer these Ts and Cs to attract a decent calibre of staff. I would have thought that a company director would be able to take that on board.

£100 at companies house and anyone can be a director of their own business!

The Doosra wrote:

marksmith0264 wrote:
Omicron I suspect your were a company Director (as am I). Not many people reach that level of benefits. Even by industry standards those are excessive benefits. Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up ;)

If Omicron's employers see fit to pay these benefits, that's their business surely. Perhaps they feel the need to offer these Ts and Cs to attract a decent calibre of staff. I would have thought that a company director would be able to take that on board.

@the doosra, you need to lighten up a little. I was having a lttle jone with Omicron. FYI
30 days holiday + bank holidays per year. (I get this too)
BUPA membership for myself and family. (I get this too)
Full pay when off sick for 39 weeks plus 26 weeks at half pay. (26 weeks full pay)
Final salary pension scheme. (very few companies can afford this anymore)
Death benefit equal to 4 years salary. ( I get this too)
Company car (I get this too)
Expense account (all expenses paid)
Allowed to travel first class on train and business class on airlines. (I try to save the company money by travelling normal class)

So yes, you are right, companies do pay the right benefits to attract a high calibre of director ;)

reflector wrote:
Sadly, this debate shows that we have fallen into the trap set by the government of creating a private versus public sector argument to assist them in their desire to keep down pay and conditions for all.

It deflects attention from the real villains of the piece - the bankers and senior executives (mainly private but, yes, some public too) who are paid mega salaries (with pensions to match) and who are the very people who have got us into this financial mess in the first place. They are just laughing at the rest of us arguing over who has the best maternity leave, sick pay etc. and forgetting that many who have the worst jobs in society are, and will remain, the lowest paid.

Indeed.

marksmith0264 wrote:
Omicron I suspect your were a company Director (as am I). Not many people reach that level of benefits. Even by industry standards those are excessive benefits. Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up ;)

No, I am not winding anybody up.
I was at the higher end of middle management working for a large blue chip company.
The conditions I had were available to virtually all members of staff with 15+ years of service.

I am going toss another issue into the argument . As someone is so anti big business and capitalism they are not the first . If I remember rightly in the bible there is reference to the money lenders and bankers running their business's within the temple ? The point is capitalism is not new , There will always be employers and employees that is the nature of the beast. Even if we had a complete socialist state there would be some better off than others just look at the failed socialist states in russia and china . It doesnt work so accept it. What we need is a bit of tolerance we dont need braggarts and idiots that stoke things for the sake of it, just accept that the government has mismanaged the economy and now we have to pay the price for electing them . I just hope that my kids and grandkids have a peaceful sustainable planet to grow up in.

Guy66 wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

marksmith0264 wrote:
Omicron I suspect your were a company Director (as am I). Not many people reach that level of benefits. Even by industry standards those are excessive benefits. Unless, of course, you are trying to wind people up ;)

If Omicron's employers see fit to pay these benefits, that's their business surely. Perhaps they feel the need to offer these Ts and Cs to attract a decent calibre of staff. I would have thought that a company director would be able to take that on board.

£100 at companies house and anyone can be a director of their own business!

You can actually set up a company yourself at companies house online for a registration fee of just £15