£22m extra cuts could be needed (From Worcester News)

So BOLD started as £45m cuts over 3 years, got extended to £60m or £90m over 4 years, and now looks like nearly £110m over the next 5.

Perhaps having 4 managers for 10 staff was a little profligate in the end then.

Sounds like someone's making the figures up. I'm so very very glad that I don't work there anymore.

I always thought that the original £45m worth of cuts was a figure plucked from thin air and so it has proved.

Trish Haines, the council’s chief executive, said: “We’re likely to have to shrink more as an organisation.”

It would be a big saving getting rid of Ms Haines £160,000 a yearish? for a start then some more of her so called managers who 'work from home supposedly' and not far behind her in the pay, the whole place is top heavy but the workers will be the ones who will be redundant, when in this country are we going to realise top heavy management drains bisness it does not create anything.

mayall8808 wrote:
Trish Haines, the council’s chief executive, said: “We’re likely to have to shrink more as an organisation.”

It would be a big saving getting rid of Ms Haines £160,000 a yearish? for a start then some more of her so called managers who 'work from home supposedly' and not far behind her in the pay, the whole place is top heavy but the workers will be the ones who will be redundant, when in this country are we going to realise top heavy management drains bisness it does not create anything.

Well said.

And how much are the parasitic 'managers' involved in the SWDP being paid? How much money is being wasted on the plan, and will be wasted on providing infrastructure for the extra population?

We clearly can't afford to provide for the people already here, yet the parasites want to impose yet more on us.

Local MPs should really face serious questions over this.

And many senior managers at County Hall should just be axed, without 'compensation'.

More Tea Vicar wrote:

mayall8808 wrote:
Trish Haines, the council’s chief executive, said: “We’re likely to have to shrink more as an organisation.”

It would be a big saving getting rid of Ms Haines £160,000 a yearish? for a start then some more of her so called managers who 'work from home supposedly' and not far behind her in the pay, the whole place is top heavy but the workers will be the ones who will be redundant, when in this country are we going to realise top heavy management drains bisness it does not create anything.

Well said.

And how much are the parasitic 'managers' involved in the SWDP being paid? How much money is being wasted on the plan, and will be wasted on providing infrastructure for the extra population?

We clearly can't afford to provide for the people already here, yet the parasites want to impose yet more on us.

Local MPs should really face serious questions over this.

And many senior managers at County Hall should just be axed, without 'compensation'.

Not just managers More Tea Vicar, but right across the board. There is so much dead wood and wasters at County Hall who are all happy to receive exorbitant wages and perks at the tax payers' expense. Just look at the expensive and posh motors in County Hall car park to show how much these staff are on.

Slash the work force to bare bones, that way we'd not only see massive savings from less wages, pensions, perks and accommodation, but service levels may improve significantly, as well as making those left actually work for once rather than spending time in pubs or surfing the internet for most of the day.

And the fact that the original BOLD forecast was so way off just shows the incompetence and inability of staff at County Hall. Still, do they care? No chance, they're probably sticking 2 fingers up to the tax payer and private sector.

DEMRICS wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:

mayall8808 wrote:
Trish Haines, the council’s chief executive, said: “We’re likely to have to shrink more as an organisation.”

It would be a big saving getting rid of Ms Haines £160,000 a yearish? for a start then some more of her so called managers who 'work from home supposedly' and not far behind her in the pay, the whole place is top heavy but the workers will be the ones who will be redundant, when in this country are we going to realise top heavy management drains bisness it does not create anything.

Well said.

And how much are the parasitic 'managers' involved in the SWDP being paid? How much money is being wasted on the plan, and will be wasted on providing infrastructure for the extra population?

We clearly can't afford to provide for the people already here, yet the parasites want to impose yet more on us.

Local MPs should really face serious questions over this.

And many senior managers at County Hall should just be axed, without 'compensation'.

Not just managers More Tea Vicar, but right across the board. There is so much dead wood and wasters at County Hall who are all happy to receive exorbitant wages and perks at the tax payers' expense. Just look at the expensive and posh motors in County Hall car park to show how much these staff are on.

Slash the work force to bare bones, that way we'd not only see massive savings from less wages, pensions, perks and accommodation, but service levels may improve significantly, as well as making those left actually work for once rather than spending time in pubs or surfing the internet for most of the day.

And the fact that the original BOLD forecast was so way off just shows the incompetence and inability of staff at County Hall. Still, do they care? No chance, they're probably sticking 2 fingers up to the tax payer and private sector.

Demrics: I am about to tell you something you don't want to read, but here goes anyway. The idea that there is vast over-manning at County Hall is bunkum it simply is a myth. I speak as an ex-county employee of many years so, unlike you, I am in a position to know.

It would be foolish to deny that there are probably a few clock-watching time servers, but you would get that in any large organisation whether it's in the private or public sector. Management needs to be liberated from petty central government control so it can deliver cost-effective services.

Here Here Doosra, those who continually carp about non-workers at County Hall certainly don't deal with the departments, that I meet with in my voluntary capacity.

There are some managers who abuse their position and think the County Council will turn a blind eye to it all and work from home to suit their own ends. Things like this need looking into.

I can only repeat that I don't find this. And I frequently have e-mails from members of staff late in the evenings, and even when a question was raised during someones (unknown to me) holiday, to receive a reply (not out of office automated e-mail) but the person who decided to answer my question sooner than leave it to their return.
I could list many good working relationships, perhaps you get back what you give out.
As to working from home it has been a political policy to attain at least 25% of staff working from home.
However after the large number of jobs going under Tory cuts, County Hall has gone from Desk Sharing ( not enough work spaces) to empty places. Perhaps this will please the critics.

skychip wrote:
There are some managers who abuse their position and think the County Council will turn a blind eye to it all and work from home to suit their own ends. Things like this need looking into.

If you have proof - make it known. I'm sure that Worcester News would love to run with such a story.

I agree with The Doosra, but sadly their comments will be totally ignored by many because the general wide held view of council workers is one of laziness, incompetence and overpaid, with hours spent down the pub each day or with feet up on the desk drinking large amounts of coffee and reading newspapers. It doesn't matter what the true facts are, too many people already have their own misguided perceptions of council workers and are happy to stick with that mindset because they're tax payers and most of them work in the private sector, so they must be right. Even if they have no idea of public sector workings, yet alone having worked for a council, which is mostly influenced by the dictatorship and bullying of councillors rather than allowing officers to get on with the job using their genuine experience, knowledge and guidance.

I have friends working at County Hall and even some of their friends are critical of them because they work for Worcestershire county council and are therefore seen as useless, under worked and overpaid. And a large majority of enquiries they deal with from the public are of similar a similar tone, with most of the criticisms being a result of the fact that the customer doesn't get what they demand as a tax payer (and the "I pay your wages" line), so the abuse inevitably follows.

But hey ho, the majority of the private sector is naturally superior, harder working, more efficient and paid less, so who am I to disagree with council critics. It wasn't the private banks that got us all in this mess........

If these critics think they're all correct with their view and genuinely know what they're on about, put your words in to action, start a petition and have a mass protest on the doors of County Hall. Invite the press too to further fuel the anti-council sentiments. Who's going to start the revolution then?

MulsanneChap wrote:
I agree with The Doosra, but sadly their comments will be totally ignored by many because the general wide held view of council workers is one of laziness, incompetence and overpaid, with hours spent down the pub each day or with feet up on the desk drinking large amounts of coffee and reading newspapers. It doesn't matter what the true facts are, too many people already have their own misguided perceptions of council workers and are happy to stick with that mindset because they're tax payers and most of them work in the private sector, so they must be right. Even if they have no idea of public sector workings, yet alone having worked for a council, which is mostly influenced by the dictatorship and bullying of councillors rather than allowing officers to get on with the job using their genuine experience, knowledge and guidance.

I have friends working at County Hall and even some of their friends are critical of them because they work for Worcestershire county council and are therefore seen as useless, under worked and overpaid. And a large majority of enquiries they deal with from the public are of similar a similar tone, with most of the criticisms being a result of the fact that the customer doesn't get what they demand as a tax payer (and the "I pay your wages" line), so the abuse inevitably follows.

But hey ho, the majority of the private sector is naturally superior, harder working, more efficient and paid less, so who am I to disagree with council critics. It wasn't the private banks that got us all in this mess........

If these critics think they're all correct with their view and genuinely know what they're on about, put your words in to action, start a petition and have a mass protest on the doors of County Hall. Invite the press too to further fuel the anti-council sentiments. Who's going to start the revolution then?

I couldn't have put it better myself.

My daughter use to work at County Hall on a temporary contract a few years ago, and apart from enjoying her time there, she said staff were extremely hard working and conscientious, with a large majority going the extra mile to get the job done, whether it be working longer hours without overtime or working at home in the evenings or weekends. She still has friends there and they too are subjected to abuse from the public and acquaintances.

She now works for a major private company and the work ethic there is apparently not even in the same league as that at County Hall. Many errors occur at great expense (which can be absorbed because it's a private company trying to make asmuch as possible), people are unreliable or incapable, there are high rates of people going offsick and there are far more tiers of management and less 'workers' per number of managers. And as for salary, she is doing something similar but is earning 25% more, as well as earning bonuses and overtime, while the general salary is much much more than those at County Hall. The MD's salary, for looking after around 2,000 employees, makes Trish Haines' look pitiful while her authority employs over 10,000 staff. Don't get me wrong, my daughter likes where she is now, but the private sector is no-where near as superior as so many think, and working in the private sector myself too, I can vouch for that.

MulsanneChap wrote:
I agree with The Doosra, but sadly their comments will be totally ignored by many because the general wide held view of council workers is one of laziness, incompetence and overpaid, with hours spent down the pub each day or with feet up on the desk drinking large amounts of coffee and reading newspapers. It doesn't matter what the true facts are, too many people already have their own misguided perceptions of council workers and are happy to stick with that mindset because they're tax payers and most of them work in the private sector, so they must be right. Even if they have no idea of public sector workings, yet alone having worked for a council, which is mostly influenced by the dictatorship and bullying of councillors rather than allowing officers to get on with the job using their genuine experience, knowledge and guidance.

I have friends working at County Hall and even some of their friends are critical of them because they work for Worcestershire county council and are therefore seen as useless, under worked and overpaid. And a large majority of enquiries they deal with from the public are of similar a similar tone, with most of the criticisms being a result of the fact that the customer doesn't get what they demand as a tax payer (and the "I pay your wages" line), so the abuse inevitably follows.

But hey ho, the majority of the private sector is naturally superior, harder working, more efficient and paid less, so who am I to disagree with council critics. It wasn't the private banks that got us all in this mess........

If these critics think they're all correct with their view and genuinely know what they're on about, put your words in to action, start a petition and have a mass protest on the doors of County Hall. Invite the press too to further fuel the anti-council sentiments. Who's going to start the revolution then?

I can only assume that you worked at County Hall MulsanneChap, which explains your extremely pro-council and protective comments, which is admirable, but is so bias in that you're spin is trying to turning reality in to fiction. I have dealt with officers at County Hall and your comments certainly do not represent my experiences with staff there, who I have found lacking in ability, rude, arrogant and just plain useless.

Please do not insult the intelligence and ethics of the tax payer or private sector workers, who are more than capable of formulating a calculated and valid opinion of council workers, and there views would certainly not support your pro-council comments. In fact they would suggest a further round of extreme sweeping cuts to council posts, salaries and benefits, as well as implementing a much needed change of culture to ensure our council servants works in a lean and efficient manner.

WilkoJ wrote:

MulsanneChap wrote:
I agree with The Doosra, but sadly their comments will be totally ignored by many because the general wide held view of council workers is one of laziness, incompetence and overpaid, with hours spent down the pub each day or with feet up on the desk drinking large amounts of coffee and reading newspapers. It doesn't matter what the true facts are, too many people already have their own misguided perceptions of council workers and are happy to stick with that mindset because they're tax payers and most of them work in the private sector, so they must be right. Even if they have no idea of public sector workings, yet alone having worked for a council, which is mostly influenced by the dictatorship and bullying of councillors rather than allowing officers to get on with the job using their genuine experience, knowledge and guidance.

I have friends working at County Hall and even some of their friends are critical of them because they work for Worcestershire county council and are therefore seen as useless, under worked and overpaid. And a large majority of enquiries they deal with from the public are of similar a similar tone, with most of the criticisms being a result of the fact that the customer doesn't get what they demand as a tax payer (and the "I pay your wages" line), so the abuse inevitably follows.

But hey ho, the majority of the private sector is naturally superior, harder working, more efficient and paid less, so who am I to disagree with council critics. It wasn't the private banks that got us all in this mess........

If these critics think they're all correct with their view and genuinely know what they're on about, put your words in to action, start a petition and have a mass protest on the doors of County Hall. Invite the press too to further fuel the anti-council sentiments. Who's going to start the revolution then?

I can only assume that you worked at County Hall MulsanneChap, which explains your extremely pro-council and protective comments, which is admirable, but is so bias in that you're spin is trying to turning reality in to fiction. I have dealt with officers at County Hall and your comments certainly do not represent my experiences with staff there, who I have found lacking in ability, rude, arrogant and just plain useless.

Please do not insult the intelligence and ethics of the tax payer or private sector workers, who are more than capable of formulating a calculated and valid opinion of council workers, and there views would certainly not support your pro-council comments. In fact they would suggest a further round of extreme sweeping cuts to council posts, salaries and benefits, as well as implementing a much needed change of culture to ensure our council servants works in a lean and efficient manner.

WilkoJ: the arrogance, pomposity and sheer dimwittedness of your cvomments is utterly breathtaking.

I'm sorry that you have had dealings with the Council which appear to be less than satisfactory. I can't help feeling however that your overbearing attitude has somewhat contributed to your sense of dis-satisfaction.

By the way, council employees are just that - not "servants"

WilkoJ wrote:

MulsanneChap wrote:
I agree with The Doosra, but sadly their comments will be totally ignored by many because the general wide held view of council workers is one of laziness, incompetence and overpaid, with hours spent down the pub each day or with feet up on the desk drinking large amounts of coffee and reading newspapers. It doesn't matter what the true facts are, too many people already have their own misguided perceptions of council workers and are happy to stick with that mindset because they're tax payers and most of them work in the private sector, so they must be right. Even if they have no idea of public sector workings, yet alone having worked for a council, which is mostly influenced by the dictatorship and bullying of councillors rather than allowing officers to get on with the job using their genuine experience, knowledge and guidance.

I have friends working at County Hall and even some of their friends are critical of them because they work for Worcestershire county council and are therefore seen as useless, under worked and overpaid. And a large majority of enquiries they deal with from the public are of similar a similar tone, with most of the criticisms being a result of the fact that the customer doesn't get what they demand as a tax payer (and the "I pay your wages" line), so the abuse inevitably follows.

But hey ho, the majority of the private sector is naturally superior, harder working, more efficient and paid less, so who am I to disagree with council critics. It wasn't the private banks that got us all in this mess........

If these critics think they're all correct with their view and genuinely know what they're on about, put your words in to action, start a petition and have a mass protest on the doors of County Hall. Invite the press too to further fuel the anti-council sentiments. Who's going to start the revolution then?

I can only assume that you worked at County Hall MulsanneChap, which explains your extremely pro-council and protective comments, which is admirable, but is so bias in that you're spin is trying to turning reality in to fiction. I have dealt with officers at County Hall and your comments certainly do not represent my experiences with staff there, who I have found lacking in ability, rude, arrogant and just plain useless.

Please do not insult the intelligence and ethics of the tax payer or private sector workers, who are more than capable of formulating a calculated and valid opinion of council workers, and there views would certainly not support your pro-council comments. In fact they would suggest a further round of extreme sweeping cuts to council posts, salaries and benefits, as well as implementing a much needed change of culture to ensure our council servants works in a lean and efficient manner.

You are more than in your rights to air your comments, and have your own views. However, it is clear that your comments are not based on impartiality and that you are intent on furthering the hatred towards council employees because it is apparent that your argument is solely based on anti-council supposition rather than facts, and that you simply have an irrational dislike towards council staff. The worrying thing is, your views are not unique.

And of course some are forgetting that the overall bosses at County Hall are the Councillors, NOW DOESN'T THAT THOUGHT FILL YOU WITH HORROR, does me.

The problem with trying to cut a coucil budget is that the main overhead is it's staff and most of these staff fulfill an important function. Remove staff and efficiency decreases and waiting times for customer facing staff and functions increases. Managers are always going to look after their own jobs first. Hence the top heavy structure usually justified by 'policy making.' And that policy usually appears to be, sack the workers.

Lizzie R wrote:
My daughter use to work at County Hall on a temporary contract a few years ago, and apart from enjoying her time there, she said staff were extremely hard working and conscientious, with a large majority going the extra mile to get the job done, whether it be working longer hours without overtime or working at home in the evenings or weekends. She still has friends there and they too are subjected to abuse from the public and acquaintances.

She now works for a major private company and the work ethic there is apparently not even in the same league as that at County Hall. Many errors occur at great expense (which can be absorbed because it's a private company trying to make asmuch as possible), people are unreliable or incapable, there are high rates of people going offsick and there are far more tiers of management and less 'workers' per number of managers. And as for salary, she is doing something similar but is earning 25% more, as well as earning bonuses and overtime, while the general salary is much much more than those at County Hall. The MD's salary, for looking after around 2,000 employees, makes Trish Haines' look pitiful while her authority employs over 10,000 staff. Don't get me wrong, my daughter likes where she is now, but the private sector is no-where near as superior as so many think, and working in the private sector myself too, I can vouch for that.

Dream on, we all believe you ;0)

I believe that the major problem is the overheads that the council have to carry. And the largest overhead of all is the pensions that have now reached the stage of 40% (BBC article) of all council taxes received.

That is an impossible state of affairs, and perhaps we need a major change.

It seems to me that outsourcing the whole council operation may be the only answer to the current dilemma, as no operation can carry the ridiculously high level of overheads that council pensions are now imposing.

MulsanneChap wrote:
I agree with The Doosra, but sadly their comments will be totally ignored by many because the general wide held view of council workers is one of laziness, incompetence and overpaid, with hours spent down the pub each day or with feet up on the desk drinking large amounts of coffee and reading newspapers. It doesn't matter what the true facts are, too many people already have their own misguided perceptions of council workers and are happy to stick with that mindset because they're tax payers and most of them work in the private sector, so they must be right. Even if they have no idea of public sector workings, yet alone having worked for a council, which is mostly influenced by the dictatorship and bullying of councillors rather than allowing officers to get on with the job using their genuine experience, knowledge and guidance.

I have friends working at County Hall and even some of their friends are critical of them because they work for Worcestershire county council and are therefore seen as useless, under worked and overpaid. And a large majority of enquiries they deal with from the public are of similar a similar tone, with most of the criticisms being a result of the fact that the customer doesn't get what they demand as a tax payer (and the "I pay your wages" line), so the abuse inevitably follows.

But hey ho, the majority of the private sector is naturally superior, harder working, more efficient and paid less, so who am I to disagree with council critics. It wasn't the private banks that got us all in this mess........

If these critics think they're all correct with their view and genuinely know what they're on about, put your words in to action, start a petition and have a mass protest on the doors of County Hall. Invite the press too to further fuel the anti-council sentiments. Who's going to start the revolution then?

I'm sorry Mulsanne Chap, but you're talking out of your backside. Try entering the world of reality and you'll really see what your friends at County Hall are really like. And as for protests and petitions, I do not see why not. Action must now be taken by the tax payers of Worcestershire, make your feelings felt.

Fishy wrote:

DEMRICS wrote:
Who are those trying to defend council workers trying to kid? Their comments are so bias that they do not reflect the real world failures of the council, the failures which tax payers are acutely aware of and suffer from. Sure, the private sector isn't totally saintly, but we all know that comparing public and private sector work ethic, efficiency and competence is like comparing chalk and cheese. Those blinded by council spin can continue to back them to the hilt in a sea of propaganda and untruths emanating from County Hall, but the majority of people see most council staff for what they are, and that is lazy, unreliable, overpaid, dishonest and lacking in ability. The constant failings from the highways department for example merely serves to the highlight the poor service we generally receive from staff at County Hall.

As a council employee I find this comment insulting.

Like most council employees I am a tax payer myself. It may also be interesting to note that we use local roads, have children in schools, relatives in need of care etc just like everyone else.

I saw more laziness among colleagues when working in the private sector than I do now. Most of us are doing our best in difficult and uncertain times and I'd like to see anyone who isn't weeded out.

I know several people who have left for private sector jobs with similar duties, more pay and in some cases less responsibility.

It is generally councillors and not employees who make important decisions. We have to abide by those decisions whether we like it or not.

Everyone seems to notice when the council gets something wrong but most fail to spot when things go right.

Quite right Fishy: I have asked Demrics for some proof of his accusations. Hell might freeze over first.

But thank GOD we have a golden library. Who the hell runs this council ?

Do they have any experience in running a business, with a budget ? NO will be the answer.

Don't cut jobs or wages, just stop the complete waste of ego projects.

I have worked in and with the councils and in the Private sector and for those who think the council workers are lazy, overpaid etc etc you need to get a life! The TOP end may well be but the others are definately not.
You will never change someone's bias opinion about the council so why if all the so called benefits and good pay and everything else do they not apply for a job??

As reguard's Demerics comments he always says the same about council employees but on some points he is right especially the Highways as they are from another planet some of the things they do.

I now work for myself and have dealings with various councils in the area and the County workers i deal with are great at there jobs, as for the Private sector in my line of work i wouldn't give them the time of day, that's my experience.

If you want to get rid of the council then BEWARE what you wish for!

It seems to me that is a perrenial problem, and I don't beieve that the current service structures are sustainable.

Each year the demands of council pensions reduce the spendable budget more and more, so the council have to cut more services to live within their budgets.

Each year this will get worse and worse, until we are asking "What services DO the council provide and at what cost?"

The time has come to consider outsourcing the majority of council services as we cannot afford the current council structure to keep providing them.

Didn't this council have a Head of Change who originally forecasted £45m cuts over 3 years? And now this person has been promoted to assistant chief executive as a reward for their incompetence. Sums Worcestershire county council nicely.

Time to start outsourcing services to the private sector if we want value for money and efficient and reliable services.

Lizzie R wrote:
My daughter use to work at County Hall on a temporary contract a few years ago, and apart from enjoying her time there, she said staff were extremely hard working and conscientious, with a large majority going the extra mile to get the job done, whether it be working longer hours without overtime or working at home in the evenings or weekends. She still has friends there and they too are subjected to abuse from the public and acquaintances.

She now works for a major private company and the work ethic there is apparently not even in the same league as that at County Hall. Many errors occur at great expense (which can be absorbed because it's a private company trying to make asmuch as possible), people are unreliable or incapable, there are high rates of people going offsick and there are far more tiers of management and less 'workers' per number of managers. And as for salary, she is doing something similar but is earning 25% more, as well as earning bonuses and overtime, while the general salary is much much more than those at County Hall. The MD's salary, for looking after around 2,000 employees, makes Trish Haines' look pitiful while her authority employs over 10,000 staff. Don't get me wrong, my daughter likes where she is now, but the private sector is no-where near as superior as so many think, and working in the private sector myself too, I can vouch for that.

Didn't this council have a Head of Change who originally forecasted £45m cuts over 3 years? And now this person has been promoted to assistant chief executive as a reward for their incompetence. Sums Worcestershire county council nicely.

Time to start outsourcing services to the private sector if we want value for money and efficient and reliable services.

Lizzie R wrote:
My daughter use to work at County Hall on a temporary contract a few years ago, and apart from enjoying her time there, she said staff were extremely hard working and conscientious, with a large majority going the extra mile to get the job done, whether it be working longer hours without overtime or working at home in the evenings or weekends. She still has friends there and they too are subjected to abuse from the public and acquaintances.

She now works for a major private company and the work ethic there is apparently not even in the same league as that at County Hall. Many errors occur at great expense (which can be absorbed because it's a private company trying to make asmuch as possible), people are unreliable or incapable, there are high rates of people going offsick and there are far more tiers of management and less 'workers' per number of managers. And as for salary, she is doing something similar but is earning 25% more, as well as earning bonuses and overtime, while the general salary is much much more than those at County Hall. The MD's salary, for looking after around 2,000 employees, makes Trish Haines' look pitiful while her authority employs over 10,000 staff. Don't get me wrong, my daughter likes where she is now, but the private sector is no-where near as superior as so many think, and working in the private sector myself too, I can vouch for that.

The difference is Trish Haines works in local government, and her authority is responsible for delivering services to the public which are being paid for by the tax payer so her salary should be a lot less than £100,000, I'd even say less than £50,000, with a similar proportion in reduction of salary applying to all council workers. If she was the chief executive of a private company, which is profit driven, she can earn what she wants, but how dare she earn what she does now at the tax payer's expense.

WilkoJ wrote:

Lizzie R wrote:
My daughter use to work at County Hall on a temporary contract a few years ago, and apart from enjoying her time there, she said staff were extremely hard working and conscientious, with a large majority going the extra mile to get the job done, whether it be working longer hours without overtime or working at home in the evenings or weekends. She still has friends there and they too are subjected to abuse from the public and acquaintances.

She now works for a major private company and the work ethic there is apparently not even in the same league as that at County Hall. Many errors occur at great expense (which can be absorbed because it's a private company trying to make asmuch as possible), people are unreliable or incapable, there are high rates of people going offsick and there are far more tiers of management and less 'workers' per number of managers. And as for salary, she is doing something similar but is earning 25% more, as well as earning bonuses and overtime, while the general salary is much much more than those at County Hall. The MD's salary, for looking after around 2,000 employees, makes Trish Haines' look pitiful while her authority employs over 10,000 staff. Don't get me wrong, my daughter likes where she is now, but the private sector is no-where near as superior as so many think, and working in the private sector myself too, I can vouch for that.

The difference is Trish Haines works in local government, and her authority is responsible for delivering services to the public which are being paid for by the tax payer so her salary should be a lot less than £100,000, I'd even say less than £50,000, with a similar proportion in reduction of salary applying to all council workers. If she was the chief executive of a private company, which is profit driven, she can earn what she wants, but how dare she earn what she does now at the tax payer's expense.

The sad thing is that WilkoJ actually believes in the guff he writes. A salary of £50k for the Chief Executive for an organisation delivering the variety of of services the WCC does is beyond absurd.

Does it not occur to him that in order to attract a high quality manager from the private sector to a post like Chief Exec of a LA, the salary would have to be a **** sight higher than £160k? And that assumes that the said manager had the necesary attributes.

The head Of Change in this County, in fact the whole Country is called government. And I don't hear any member of the public admitting the part they all played in the Boom & Bust years, so many being maxed out on several credit cards, but still able, if not encouraged to swap the debt to another Bank, because debt means interest and profits.
Then we move to the Wiser Old Owls who were / have to live on the money they get each week and NO MORE. These are the people scorned at for not having Bank Accounts or credit cards, these are the people who when there is no money left in the purse / wallet have to go without, often little food or cold homes. And this is in 2012, where this government continues to send Hundreds of £Millions to countries who are ranked above us in the world, who have nuclear deterrents, Billionaires being created daily who don't care about their own poor or the worlds poor. And we oldies still contribute to World Aid, any Charities relating to children, Water Aid, and such.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE POLITICIANS. After the expenses scandal they are now being caught out for renting out property that is being supplemented in one way or another by we tax payers money. Little changes with the discretion's by previous politicians just the dates on the calender.

The Doorsa says;;;The sad thing is that WilkoJ actually believes in the guff he writes. A salary of £50k for the Chief Executive for an organisation delivering the variety of of services the WCC does is beyond absurd.

Does it not occur to him that in order to attract a high quality manager from the private sector to a post like Chief Exec of a LA, the salary would have to be a **** sight higher than £160k? And that assumes that the said manager had the necesary attributes.

Quite agree and lets remember Private is for profit and in my experience Private isn't all its supposed to be, as its been said before, Be careful what you wish for,
Trish Haines has cut back the workforce so should she not be having less money as there is less to run, i personally don't find her that good and i do think her pay is too much but as it was said its the market price for a job like that but vastly overrated as i do find a lot of people in such positions.

You have to admire the Government because the spin emanating from Westminster has been so successful in brainwashing the general public in to thinking that the root cause for this country's difficulties is down to council workers, conveniently deflecting the blame away from the banks, and that the only solution out of this mess is now through the private sector who are now lauded as being the saviours, and are worshipped by the public. And at the same time the vilification towards council workers increases because they're now genuinely seen as creating this country's problems and are seen as parasites. I'm sure a criminal would be treated with less hatred than council workers at the moment.

WilkoJ wrote:
Didn't this council have a Head of Change who originally forecasted £45m cuts over 3 years? And now this person has been promoted to assistant chief executive as a reward for their incompetence. Sums Worcestershire county council nicely.

Time to start outsourcing services to the private sector if we want value for money and efficient and reliable services.

Good point. Their original forecast was so way out, and yet not only are they kept in a job, they got promoted to assistant Chief Executive! Incompetence is rife in the council to such a degree that were this private sector, almost all the workforce would have been sacked, with not even a payout.

There soon won't be the need for as many council staff since they (county council) for some years now have been quietly working towards being services commissioners only, which means more outsourcing of staff, or another name for Privatisation. And with plans that any costs involved in providing a service to a client will be paid for by the Client / end user.
Will we perhaps see the days when we are faced with yet more cash payment machines as in the Hive ( I call Daleks), for since they were installed for payment of Council Tax, the very helpful staff that would always answer questions / Queries were no longer to be seen. And of course with more and more online business it is easier to just unplug a machine.

WilkoJ wrote:
Didn't this council have a Head of Change who originally forecasted £45m cuts over 3 years? And now this person has been promoted to assistant chief executive as a reward for their incompetence. Sums Worcestershire county council nicely.

This above i agree with and that is the worker level that needs sorting out.

BUT

Time to start outsourcing services to the private sector if we want value for money and efficient and reliable services.

What a load of rubbish you come up with sometimes, you have a very distorted view of the actuall workers as they work hard and get very little reward other than what YOU think they get, i have said before i deal with them all as well as your so called PRIVATE sector in my job and the latter are money driven do a BAD job and it will only cost the taxpayer more in the long run;
BEWARE what you wish for!

With council people able to have just under 60 days off a year, are barely in (which I've experienced when trying to speak to staff at County Hall offices), are earning very high wages, paid overtime and time off in lieu at the same time, have gold plated pensions, and are often or not spending a few hours each afternoon in the pubs very close to County Hall drinking and eating (which I've been told is all on expenses), is it any wonder the public have misgivings about council workers.

WJS1950 wrote:
With council people able to have just under 60 days off a year, are barely in (which I've experienced when trying to speak to staff at County Hall offices), are earning very high wages, paid overtime and time off in lieu at the same time, have gold plated pensions, and are often or not spending a few hours each afternoon in the pubs very close to County Hall drinking and eating (which I've been told is all on expenses), is it any wonder the public have misgivings about council workers.

Care to prove any of this?

The Doosra wrote:

WJS1950 wrote:
With council people able to have just under 60 days off a year, are barely in (which I've experienced when trying to speak to staff at County Hall offices), are earning very high wages, paid overtime and time off in lieu at the same time, have gold plated pensions, and are often or not spending a few hours each afternoon in the pubs very close to County Hall drinking and eating (which I've been told is all on expenses), is it any wonder the public have misgivings about council workers.

Care to prove any of this?

I shall try The Doosra. For starters council staff have up to 33 days holiday entitlement (based on how long they have been in the job) plus up to 24 days flexi time each year, meaning they have the potential to be off work up to 57 days a year.

As for staff not being in, I can only comment from my experience but I am always told that someone is either on holiday, out of the office or in a meeting.

Details of county council pay can be found at www.worcestershire.g
ov.uk/cms/pdf/Pay%20
Policy%20Statement%2
0WCC%20300112%20Vn%2
08%20(3)update.pdf As you will see, there are a number of chief officer positions, all on over £75,000 per annum. Staff below them also appear to receive handsome salaries.

I have been told that staff who claim overtime are also given time off in lieu. So paid and having a days off for working overtime.

Pensions. I don't really need to say more as we're all aware of public sector pension generosity following various strikes and protests.

Have a visit to the pub near County Hall during the afternoon. You'll find a number of council staff in there enjoying themselves. One employee told my father that their pub lunches are all on expenses.

The entitlement to flex-leave is just that an "entitlement" it doesn't mean that the leave is actually taken.And, flex has to be built up before the leave is taken.

It was my experience that the odd flex-day here and there was a welcome a handy addition to one's leave entitlement, but it is wide of the mark to suggest that every council employee habitually takes 57 days off a year.

The Doosra wrote:
The entitlement to flex-leave is just that an "entitlement" it doesn't mean that the leave is actually taken.And, flex has to be built up before the leave is taken.

It was my experience that the odd flex-day here and there was a welcome a handy addition to one's leave entitlement, but it is wide of the mark to suggest that every council employee habitually takes 57 days off a year.

True, but it does mean that we still have the possibility of council staff being away from work for up to 57 days, nearly 2 months! And even if not all staff use this flexi time, it only takes a handful for the council to have a huge amount of lost hours though staff absence.

WJS1950 wrote:

The Doosra wrote:
The entitlement to flex-leave is just that an "entitlement" it doesn't mean that the leave is actually taken.And, flex has to be built up before the leave is taken.

It was my experience that the odd flex-day here and there was a welcome a handy addition to one's leave entitlement, but it is wide of the mark to suggest that every council employee habitually takes 57 days off a year.

True, but it does mean that we still have the possibility of council staff being away from work for up to 57 days, nearly 2 months! And even if not all staff use this flexi time, it only takes a handful for the council to have a huge amount of lost hours though staff absence.

What "lost" hours? The time has to be worked in advance of the leave being taken.

WJS1950 wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

WJS1950 wrote: With council people able to have just under 60 days off a year, are barely in (which I've experienced when trying to speak to staff at County Hall offices), are earning very high wages, paid overtime and time off in lieu at the same time, have gold plated pensions, and are often or not spending a few hours each afternoon in the pubs very close to County Hall drinking and eating (which I've been told is all on expenses), is it any wonder the public have misgivings about council workers.

Care to prove any of this?

I shall try The Doosra. For starters council staff have up to 33 days holiday entitlement (based on how long they have been in the job) plus up to 24 days flexi time each year, meaning they have the potential to be off work up to 57 days a year. As for staff not being in, I can only comment from my experience but I am always told that someone is either on holiday, out of the office or in a meeting. Details of county council pay can be found at www.worcestershire.g ov.uk/cms/pdf/Pay%20 Policy%20Statement%2 0WCC%20300112%20Vn%2 08%20(3)update.pdf As you will see, there are a number of chief officer positions, all on over £75,000 per annum. Staff below them also appear to receive handsome salaries. I have been told that staff who claim overtime are also given time off in lieu. So paid and having a days off for working overtime. Pensions. I don't really need to say more as we're all aware of public sector pension generosity following various strikes and protests. Have a visit to the pub near County Hall during the afternoon. You'll find a number of council staff in there enjoying themselves. One employee told my father that their pub lunches are all on expenses.

There is no way that the pubs near county hall could accommodate us all so if this were true every pub within miles would be bursting at its seams at lunchtime.

The only way in which a pub lunch might be on expenses would be if entertaining a visitor and then I wouldn't hold out much hope.

WJS1950 wrote:

The Doosra wrote: The entitlement to flex-leave is just that an "entitlement" it doesn't mean that the leave is actually taken.And, flex has to be built up before the leave is taken. It was my experience that the odd flex-day here and there was a welcome a handy addition to one's leave entitlement, but it is wide of the mark to suggest that every council employee habitually takes 57 days off a year.

True, but it does mean that we still have the possibility of council staff being away from work for up to 57 days, nearly 2 months! And even if not all staff use this flexi time, it only takes a handful for the council to have a huge amount of lost hours though staff absence.

Staff who buildi up flex time work more hours per day when in the office and thus are available earlier/later in the day than they would otherwise have been.

Unavailability is more likely to be down to being in a meeting/site visit etc as being on flex.

In my experience the vast majority of council workers try to do the best job they can in very difficult circumstances for little pay. The problem is with senior managers, who consistently make ludicrous decisions, fail to understand how services are delivered, misjudge the public mood, and operate without the trust of their staff, and all for an overinflated paypacket. They would not survive five minutes in the private sector.

I see you're all at it again, talking ill informed rubbish and lashing out at people. Please, if you're going to bother to write anything, try to get your facts correct and your spelling right, then perhaps you might be taken seriously. Until then, any intelligent person who bothers to uncover the truth of the situation will realise that most of you appear to be repeating inaccurate vitriolic rubbish.

rackedoff wrote:
I see you're all at it again, talking ill informed rubbish and lashing out at people. Please, if you're going to bother to write anything, try to get your facts correct and your spelling right, then perhaps you might be taken seriously. Until then, any intelligent person who bothers to uncover the truth of the situation will realise that most of you appear to be repeating inaccurate vitriolic rubbish.

Really looking forward to your "informed" opinions.

I find it objectionable that the chief exec earns a lot more than the PM.
.
A lot could be saved by culling the management, rather than the workers.

MJI wrote:
I find it objectionable that the chief exec earns a lot more than the PM.
.
A lot could be saved by culling the management, rather than the workers.

I find it obectionable that this PM is paid - period!

MJI wrote:
I find it objectionable that the chief exec earns a lot more than the PM.
.
A lot could be saved by culling the management, rather than the workers.

You could apply that reasoning to the MDs and CE's of private companies too.

The Doosra wrote:

MJI wrote:
I find it objectionable that the chief exec earns a lot more than the PM.
.
A lot could be saved by culling the management, rather than the workers.

I find it obectionable that this PM is paid - period!

Doorsa

Anyone who can view Ms Haines' package as comparable with that of the PM must be stupid - wasn't aware Ms Haines is provided with free accommodation, a weekend retreat, unlimited expenses (subject to IPSA), chauffeur driven vehicle etc etc., and the chance to make millions once they step down. More like the green eyed monster I reckon....... Influencing your comments.

rackedoff wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

MJI wrote:
I find it objectionable that the chief exec earns a lot more than the PM.
.
A lot could be saved by culling the management, rather than the workers.

I find it obectionable that this PM is paid - period!

Doorsa

Anyone who can view Ms Haines' package as comparable with that of the PM must be stupid - wasn't aware Ms Haines is provided with free accommodation, a weekend retreat, unlimited expenses (subject to IPSA), chauffeur driven vehicle etc etc., and the chance to make millions once they step down. More like the green eyed monster I reckon....... Influencing your comments.

You might want to re-read my comment