650 job cuts bombshell at County Hall (From Worcester News)

About time further jobs were lost at the council, now they can be in it together with the hard hit private sector.

Hopefully, these job losses will now see those left actually working towards full capacity, and in an efficient way too. The council was overstaffed with too many people doing next to nothing for a lot of money. 3,000 employees is still a lot to be left with and I'm sure further cuts could be made. The private sector could provide the same level of service with probably only half that number.

And with these extra much needed job losses, it's now time to bring down the exorbitant wages which council staff earn, as well as overtime rates and other benefits.

Hopefully the look of smugness has been wiped off the faces of council workers, at a time when thousands of jobs are being lost in the private sector.

I agree that those that are left will now hopefully adopt a work ethic akin to that of the private sector, which should see the standards of services rise, allowing the tax payer to receive what they pay for.

I just hope that these job losses are not compensated by generous redundancy packages, while their attempts to find new jobs will bring them in to the real world and see what so many are having to contend with.

I wouldn't really wish unemployment on anyone, and I fear that good people are losing their jobs here.

But...who will actually be affected? The grossly overpaid senior managers? I bet not.

Or those involved in those lavishly funded SWDP roadshows? Again, I doubt it, even though these are the people who should be sacked, immediately.

As for the rest of the workforce, I wish most of them luck. But many of them must have known they were on a cushy number, what with that high absenteeism rate.

Also, many must know that they're doing non-jobs. Those involved in Council PR, for example.

More Tea Vicar wrote:
I wouldn't really wish unemployment on anyone, and I fear that good people are losing their jobs here.

But...who will actually be affected? The grossly overpaid senior managers? I bet not.

Or those involved in those lavishly funded SWDP roadshows? Again, I doubt it, even though these are the people who should be sacked, immediately.

As for the rest of the workforce, I wish most of them luck. But many of them must have known they were on a cushy number, what with that high absenteeism rate.

Also, many must know that they're doing non-jobs. Those involved in Council PR, for example.

Those imbeciles from the highways department responsible for the Whittington roundabout should be losing their jobs with no payout. And talking of PR, how about Mr Fraser, the council's number one publicist and wannabe actor.

The fresh cuts, revealed yesterday, are contained in the council’s Corporate Plan for 2013-17, which also says workers that stay on can expect higher salaries because the quality of jobs will be better.
What's the point in getting rid of hundreds of workers just to pay more to the ones that are left, being fortunate enough to keep their jobs should be reward enough. By saying 'the quality of jobs will be better' does that mean that management positions will be created at higher pay?

May I respectfully suggest to Saucerer and Redhillman that before they start spitting their ill-informed bile that they see what services will no longer be offered as a result of these cuts.

The Doosra wrote:
May I respectfully suggest to Saucerer and Redhillman that before they start spitting their ill-informed bile that they see what services will no longer be offered as a result of these cuts.

I think the point is, the cuts will probably affect lower-paid workers,and services, but not the people at the top.

And it's the people at the top that are the ones that need cutting.

More Tea Vicar wrote:

The Doosra wrote:
May I respectfully suggest to Saucerer and Redhillman that before they start spitting their ill-informed bile that they see what services will no longer be offered as a result of these cuts.

I think the point is, the cuts will probably affect lower-paid workers,and services, but not the people at the top.

And it's the people at the top that are the ones that need cutting.

There is a sensible debate to be had about how local services should be delivered - the John Lewis model mentioned in another article is worth exploring as is the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors. I just wish we could get past the "private sector good - public sector bad" excuse for discussion, it's too simplistic for words.

In spite of all the cuts already made there are still hundreds of cars parked on the campus and nearby roads. If hundreds more jobs have to go there will be plenty of spaces in the car park, hence reducing the congestion on the local area.

saucerer wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:
I wouldn't really wish unemployment on anyone, and I fear that good people are losing their jobs here.

But...who will actually be affected? The grossly overpaid senior managers? I bet not.

Or those involved in those lavishly funded SWDP roadshows? Again, I doubt it, even though these are the people who should be sacked, immediately.

As for the rest of the workforce, I wish most of them luck. But many of them must have known they were on a cushy number, what with that high absenteeism rate.

Also, many must know that they're doing non-jobs. Those involved in Council PR, for example.

Those imbeciles from the highways department responsible for the Whittington roundabout should be losing their jobs with no payout. And talking of PR, how about Mr Fraser, the council's number one publicist and wannabe actor.

Mr Fraser on the local news yet again.

skychip wrote:
In spite of all the cuts already made there are still hundreds of cars parked on the campus and nearby roads. If hundreds more jobs have to go there will be plenty of spaces in the car park, hence reducing the congestion on the local area.

650 people lose their jobs but at least skychip will be able to park!

The Doosra wrote:
May I respectfully suggest to Saucerer and Redhillman that before they start spitting their ill-informed bile that they see what services will no longer be offered as a result of these cuts.

Services can still be maintained, especially statutory ones, by less staff if they work much harder and more efficiently, and become dedicated to the job they're employed and paid by the tax payer to do.

I see no reason why senior management posts can't be outsourced also. Strange why this never seems to happen isn't it ?

DEMRICS wrote:

The Doosra wrote:
May I respectfully suggest to Saucerer and Redhillman that before they start spitting their ill-informed bile that they see what services will no longer be offered as a result of these cuts.

Services can still be maintained, especially statutory ones, by less staff if they work much harder and more efficiently, and become dedicated to the job they're employed and paid by the tax payer to do.

Demrics: as an ex-WCC employee I can tell you that the vast majority of staff are dedicated, and work as efficiently as they are able given the financial constraints within which they operate.

Only a fool would deny that continued improvement needs to be sought, but only a fool would argue that outsourcing local government services en block to the private sector would transform services overnight like the waiving of a magic wand.

Outsourcing can be good. I left WCC to work for a company that does some outsourcing for council services. I now work less hours and earn 6k more than i did at WCC. Also i have no where near as much work to do compared to WCC.
My pay still comes via govt it just does not show up on their wage bills.

I find it interesting that a lot of councils that did out source services before the financial crisis are now taking them back in house. Does this mean the private sector are not the silver lined cloud some senior council managers seem to think?
just Google "council insourcing" and you will see what i mean.

I am a council employee and please bear in mind the following points before slagging us off:

We are tax payers ourselves

We use the county's roads, have children in school etc just like everyone else

We have had our pay frozen for two years and been forced to take mandatory unpaid leave

WCC has a relatively low sickness absence rate compared to most employers and we do not receive pay for the first three days of sickness

My colleagues and I are doing our best in difficult and uncertain times.

Worcestershire is one of the lowest funded and highest performing councils in the country

The Doosra wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:

The Doosra wrote:
May I respectfully suggest to Saucerer and Redhillman that before they start spitting their ill-informed bile that they see what services will no longer be offered as a result of these cuts.

I think the point is, the cuts will probably affect lower-paid workers,and services, but not the people at the top.

And it's the people at the top that are the ones that need cutting.

There is a sensible debate to be had about how local services should be delivered - the John Lewis model mentioned in another article is worth exploring as is the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors. I just wish we could get past the "private sector good - public sector bad" excuse for discussion, it's too simplistic for words.

Yes it is. That's why I don't mention it.

The notion that the private sector is always best is ludicrous. There are some terrible private sector companies. But equally, there is a lot of arrogance in the public sector; you quite often hear NHS staff boasting that the NHS is brilliant, the envy of the world....at the same time as things like Redditch and North Staffs are going on. And that reflex "it's all the banks's fault" argument is very thin.

But it is clear that the Council could do what it does with less resource. They are clearly very wasteful. And there are plenty of posts and "services" they could no doubt dispense with completely.

The PR department immediately springs to mind; the people responsible for that Pravda-gram the Council does a few times per year, and all those posters that litter so many public buildings.

And there is no reason why we should be paying anyone anything like Ms Haines' salary.

Fishy wrote:
I am a council employee and please bear in mind the following points before slagging us off:

We are tax payers ourselves

We use the county's roads, have children in school etc just like everyone else

We have had our pay frozen for two years and been forced to take mandatory unpaid leave

WCC has a relatively low sickness absence rate compared to most employers and we do not receive pay for the first three days of sickness

My colleagues and I are doing our best in difficult and uncertain times.

Worcestershire is one of the lowest funded and highest performing councils in the country

You might be tax payers, but you get money out, we don't. Lots of people have had pay freezes, or been made redundant.

Low funding may be an issue, but there is also very obvious waste. Jobs are often made necessary by Council mistakes, and poorly dealt with, meaning they have to be done again (poor road repairs, planting greenery where it is bound to be an obstruction, so it always has to be cut back).

High performance? Maybe, but nothing terribly visible. Streets aren't particularly clean,for example.

You say WCC has a low absenteeism rate compared to most employers. Are you sure about that? Genuine question. I recall stats in the WN, saying the WCC absenteeism rate was about 10 or 11 days per year compared to c 6 in the private sector.

I actually have some sympathy with the 'ordinary people' working for the Council, and very little for the senior management. But absenteeism, and the general lack of performance, doesn't help with perceptions.

Most people are in favour of local authority cuts............but then scream blue murder if it then affects them personally. I suspect that much of the fat, if it ever existed, has now gone and that these further cuts will really bite.

If you are in favour of what is happening, don't start moaning when it's your local library, leisure centre, school or social service that is affected, your planning application takes longer to deal with, potholes in your road that isn't repaired, bin emptied less often, etc., etc., etc.

reflector wrote:
Most people are in favour of local authority cuts............but then scream blue murder if it then affects them personally. I suspect that much of the fat, if it ever existed, has now gone and that these further cuts will really bite.

If you are in favour of what is happening, don't start moaning when it's your local library, leisure centre, school or social service that is affected, your planning application takes longer to deal with, potholes in your road that isn't repaired, bin emptied less often, etc., etc., etc.

I don't know if that's actually true. There is a degree of resentment against local government, and a feeling that many things could be cut which would have little effect on 'most people'.

There will always be that sneaking suspicion that the Council will cut services before it cuts management pay and numbers. Maybe even cut services precisely so as to 'warn' the public.

You mention potholes. It sometimes seems the Council does a deliberately poor job, to ensure that it needs doing again, thus ensuring jobs.

Likewise shrubbery etc, apparently deliberately planted so as to cause maximum inconvenience, and need cutting back.

Or look at the St Peters roundabout drama/crisis/kerfuff
le. How much did it cost? Then immediately re-worked. Looks wasteful.

Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

I wonder how many staff have turned up at County Hall today in the snow. Very few I imagine, yet so many in the private sector would have ventured out to get to work from wherever they live due to their conscience and work ethic, and their recognition in keeping the economy going.

mrwrighty wrote:
Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

There should certainly be a cap on wages. The Chief Executive should be on no more than £50k, while everyone below her should have their salary based on their position in the hierachy. If that means something like £10k for some, then so be it. We pay these people to deliver council services, not to simply line their pockets with extortionate wages. Staff chose to work for the council to provide services, and that should be their main raison d'etre, not to earn massive salaries at the expense of the tax payer.

What a load of garbage is spouted again, It is time the fat cats were sorted out as that's where the costs are and the incompetance, But yet again it's time to bash the council workers who are out today as everyone expects there little world not to be interupted by the snow and bashing the fantastic pay and conditions!!!!!!!!!! If its so good then why haven't you been for a job? most of the basher's are usually inept at what they do and as reguard's to the services, well give me the council staff expertise everytime as most the Godly private sector are utter crap at what they do and i do have first hand knowledge of that, If more essential services from the council are out sourced then becareful what you wish for as those services will end up the same rip off as everything else the private sector do.

Firstly on a human level it should be said that I wish nobody had to lose their job.

Sadly, a further 650 jobs (1500 in total) by 2017 is to little to late. Assuming that this is a genuine cut (politicians are great at saying they are "cutting" when they mean they are not spending all of the budget for next year which was actually an increase on the prior year - just check next time a politician claims a cut - they are in cloud cuckoo land!) then there is still further to go. 3000 is a large number of people for this county, particularly when there is also a city council and local district councils! Equally, WHY WAIT TILL 2017! YOU are wasting more of OUR money!

THAT SAID - It is not the fault of the employees, some of whom are I'm sure hard working and dedicated. To those I say "I'm sorry, but many of you were offered jobs over the last 10-15yrs in a growing public sector that we neither needed, nor could afford. Now we have to pay the piper."

Equally, to the proportion of shirkers that exist in the council, I say "Yout time has come. Welcome to the real world, now go and find something useful to do".

To the senior leaders in the council, I say "Shame on you." If you had an ounce of integrity you would have proactively reduced your own number in proportion, and you would have dealt with poor performers and poor productivity. If you had done this, the headlines would now have much less impact, and fewer council employees would be being cast aside. Your inept performance in Senior Management proves you are not worthy to provide public services, nor to be paid your over inflated salaries. Unlike some others, if the funding was available (via our taxes - remember who YOU work for) I'd be happy to pay a commensurate remuneration for your services and productivity, but right now you are ripping us off, and you have treated your employees shabbily.

When it comes to cutting services, I haven't seen any cut yet. I've just seen some delivered badly for years. Here's some advice:

1. Remove the existing "FAT" as fast as possible.
2. Once "1" is complete, cease providing all non-essential services (what muppet commissioned the rural broadband initiative for example!).
3. Deliver the remaining services properly and ASK your customer what level of service, and what changes to services they would like on a regular basis.

GOOD LUCK.

By 2017?
Not soon enough!, They must have had the consultancy period so give the wasters their papers now and they can all be gone by March, why are they dragging it out?
In fact make it an extra 1000 not 650.

mayall8808 wrote:
What a load of garbage is spouted again, It is time the fat cats were sorted out as that's where the costs are and the incompetance, But yet again it's time to bash the council workers who are out today as everyone expects there little world not to be interupted by the snow and bashing the fantastic pay and conditions!!!!!!!!!! If its so good then why haven't you been for a job? most of the basher's are usually inept at what they do and as reguard's to the services, well give me the council staff expertise everytime as most the Godly private sector are utter crap at what they do and i do have first hand knowledge of that, If more essential services from the council are out sourced then becareful what you wish for as those services will end up the same rip off as everything else the private sector do.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

You've no particular justification for your criticism of the private sector.

You say
" If its so good then why haven't you been for a job? "
Easy. Many people have skills that could never be used in the public sector. You could just as easily ask why public sector workers didn't apply to be in the private sector...

You say
"most of the basher's are usually inept at what they do"
You've absolutely no reason to say that. None at all. Sounds like hysterical wishful thinking.

You say
", well give me the council staff expertise everytime as most the Godly private sector are utter crap at what they do "
Some of the private sector absolutely is crap at what it does. But people get sacked for that. Don't talk about bankers, it's too predictable, and too limited, and you'll just get a list of all the public sector foul-ups...Redditch, North Staff etc.

I for one don't regard outsourcing as a solution for anything in general. In most cases, the answer is, just stop the service if it isn't necessary, or do it right if it is.

Landy44 wrote:
Firstly on a human level it should be said that I wish nobody had to lose their job.

Sadly, a further 650 jobs (1500 in total) by 2017 is to little to late. Assuming that this is a genuine cut (politicians are great at saying they are "cutting" when they mean they are not spending all of the budget for next year which was actually an increase on the prior year - just check next time a politician claims a cut - they are in cloud cuckoo land!) then there is still further to go. 3000 is a large number of people for this county, particularly when there is also a city council and local district councils! Equally, WHY WAIT TILL 2017! YOU are wasting more of OUR money!

THAT SAID - It is not the fault of the employees, some of whom are I'm sure hard working and dedicated. To those I say "I'm sorry, but many of you were offered jobs over the last 10-15yrs in a growing public sector that we neither needed, nor could afford. Now we have to pay the piper."

Equally, to the proportion of shirkers that exist in the council, I say "Yout time has come. Welcome to the real world, now go and find something useful to do".

To the senior leaders in the council, I say "Shame on you." If you had an ounce of integrity you would have proactively reduced your own number in proportion, and you would have dealt with poor performers and poor productivity. If you had done this, the headlines would now have much less impact, and fewer council employees would be being cast aside. Your inept performance in Senior Management proves you are not worthy to provide public services, nor to be paid your over inflated salaries. Unlike some others, if the funding was available (via our taxes - remember who YOU work for) I'd be happy to pay a commensurate remuneration for your services and productivity, but right now you are ripping us off, and you have treated your employees shabbily.

When it comes to cutting services, I haven't seen any cut yet. I've just seen some delivered badly for years. Here's some advice:

1. Remove the existing "FAT" as fast as possible.
2. Once "1" is complete, cease providing all non-essential services (what muppet commissioned the rural broadband initiative for example!).
3. Deliver the remaining services properly and ASK your customer what level of service, and what changes to services they would like on a regular basis.

GOOD LUCK.

Well said.

Limiting top salaries to about 50k, and halving the numbers, would be a good idea.

How about sacking them all and giving them the chance to re-apply at the new rates?

If they're as good as their salaries indicate, they'll have no trouble finding jobs in the private sector.

farmeralan1963 wrote:
I wonder how many staff have turned up at County Hall today in the snow. Very few I imagine, yet so many in the private sector would have ventured out to get to work from wherever they live due to their conscience and work ethic, and their recognition in keeping the economy going.

Myself & colleagues were in work today, I left home at 6:30 & was in the office for 7:15. I've just arrived home after a long drive in the snow. Did farmeralan1963 make it into work today?

farmeralan1963 wrote:

mrwrighty wrote:
Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

There should certainly be a cap on wages. The Chief Executive should be on no more than £50k, while everyone below her should have their salary based on their position in the hierachy. If that means something like £10k for some, then so be it. We pay these people to deliver council services, not to simply line their pockets with extortionate wages. Staff chose to work for the council to provide services, and that should be their main raison d'etre, not to earn massive salaries at the expense of the tax payer.

Your grip on reality seems to weaken with each passing day. £50k salary for the Chief Executive for an organisation like the County Council? If you suggested a figure like that for a similarly sized company in the private sector, the men in white coats would be sent for!

It is a sad day when people can say they are glad people are
to lose jobs!!!

Anna_Key wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:
I wonder how many staff have turned up at County Hall today in the snow. Very few I imagine, yet so many in the private sector would have ventured out to get to work from wherever they live due to their conscience and work ethic, and their recognition in keeping the economy going.

Myself & colleagues were in work today, I left home at 6:30 & was in the office for 7:15. I've just arrived home after a long drive in the snow. Did farmeralan1963 make it into work today?

Well said Anna

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

mrwrighty wrote:
Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

There should certainly be a cap on wages. The Chief Executive should be on no more than £50k, while everyone below her should have their salary based on their position in the hierachy. If that means something like £10k for some, then so be it. We pay these people to deliver council services, not to simply line their pockets with extortionate wages. Staff chose to work for the council to provide services, and that should be their main raison d'etre, not to earn massive salaries at the expense of the tax payer.

Your grip on reality seems to weaken with each passing day. £50k salary for the Chief Executive for an organisation like the County Council? If you suggested a figure like that for a similarly sized company in the private sector, the men in white coats would be sent for!

Local government is an organisation for providing statutory and essential services to the tax payer, not an organisation where employees go o work to earn as much as possible like the private sector. As much of the funding should go to services, not to line the pockets of staff. The Chief Executive, Directors and Department heads all have a combined salary of over £1m. Staff below are also on excessive wages.

farmeralan1963 wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

mrwrighty wrote:
Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

There should certainly be a cap on wages. The Chief Executive should be on no more than £50k, while everyone below her should have their salary based on their position in the hierachy. If that means something like £10k for some, then so be it. We pay these people to deliver council services, not to simply line their pockets with extortionate wages. Staff chose to work for the council to provide services, and that should be their main raison d'etre, not to earn massive salaries at the expense of the tax payer.

Your grip on reality seems to weaken with each passing day. £50k salary for the Chief Executive for an organisation like the County Council? If you suggested a figure like that for a similarly sized company in the private sector, the men in white coats would be sent for!

Local government is an organisation for providing statutory and essential services to the tax payer, not an organisation where employees go o work to earn as much as possible like the private sector. As much of the funding should go to services, not to line the pockets of staff. The Chief Executive, Directors and Department heads all have a combined salary of over £1m. Staff below are also on excessive wages.

How are you supposed to attract talented capable staff on the sort of salaries you are suggesting. Answer me this: if local government salaries are so exorbitant - how come there isn't a queue of people from the private sector wanting jobs in local government stretching from County Hall to Timbuktu?

farmeralan1963 wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

mrwrighty wrote: Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

There should certainly be a cap on wages. The Chief Executive should be on no more than £50k, while everyone below her should have their salary based on their position in the hierachy. If that means something like £10k for some, then so be it. We pay these people to deliver council services, not to simply line their pockets with extortionate wages. Staff chose to work for the council to provide services, and that should be their main raison d'etre, not to earn massive salaries at the expense of the tax payer.

Your grip on reality seems to weaken with each passing day. £50k salary for the Chief Executive for an organisation like the County Council? If you suggested a figure like that for a similarly sized company in the private sector, the men in white coats would be sent for!

Local government is an organisation for providing statutory and essential services to the tax payer, not an organisation where employees go o work to earn as much as possible like the private sector. As much of the funding should go to services, not to line the pockets of staff. The Chief Executive, Directors and Department heads all have a combined salary of over £1m. Staff below are also on excessive wages.

Just wait until services are commissioned (outsourced) - you'll find your tax $ go to fund the profits of the private sector. They won't provide services for free you know....... ps still wondering if farmeralan1963 went to work today :-)

Local government long since being about serving the taxpayer and turned into providing state subsidised jobs for the otherwise unemployable under nulabour, let's see how many find jobs in the private sector at these vastly inflated salaries

Very interesting. Shame WN didn't have this info but it was only published this evening:

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-her
eford-worcester-1999
7292

It's a small start.

That said £300k for TWO senior council Managers.....REALLY?

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

mrwrighty wrote:
Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

There should certainly be a cap on wages. The Chief Executive should be on no more than £50k, while everyone below her should have their salary based on their position in the hierachy. If that means something like £10k for some, then so be it. We pay these people to deliver council services, not to simply line their pockets with extortionate wages. Staff chose to work for the council to provide services, and that should be their main raison d'etre, not to earn massive salaries at the expense of the tax payer.

Your grip on reality seems to weaken with each passing day. £50k salary for the Chief Executive for an organisation like the County Council? If you suggested a figure like that for a similarly sized company in the private sector, the men in white coats would be sent for!

Local government is an organisation for providing statutory and essential services to the tax payer, not an organisation where employees go o work to earn as much as possible like the private sector. As much of the funding should go to services, not to line the pockets of staff. The Chief Executive, Directors and Department heads all have a combined salary of over £1m. Staff below are also on excessive wages.

How are you supposed to attract talented capable staff on the sort of salaries you are suggesting. Answer me this: if local government salaries are so exorbitant - how come there isn't a queue of people from the private sector wanting jobs in local government stretching from County Hall to Timbuktu?

There is no sign that we actually have particularly 'talented' people. And the job doesn't really require much obvious 'talent' anyway. These people don't make decisions under pressure, or on their own. They never, ever, take responsibility for anything.

Your question about why private sector people aren't lining up to take public sector jobs reveals part of the problem with the thinking current in the public sector. You don't really seem to understand life 'outside'.

Many in the private sector find the lack of responsibility, competence and commitment that characterises so much local government management hard to live with. Many have skills that would be difficult to use within the public sector.

But the real issue is, the degree of responsibility, hard work, commitment etc required of a senior local government manager is relatively low, more akin to a department head in an SME than the head of a large company.

I would argue for good wages for the likes of binmen and cleaners, and acceptable rather than exorbitant salaries for those at the top. £50 to £70k is more than enough for the managers that stay on, after a cull reducing their numbers by half.

And if they're so good, I'm sure they can find better elsewhere.

Tell me MTV. Have you ever worked at County Hall or anywhere else in the public sector?

I do get a little tired of these topics degenerating into bitter exchanges about Public versus Private Sectors as though one was completely bad and the other a shining example of total efficiency.

Having worked in and with both, I can assure you that I have come across examples of waste and gross inefficiency in them both, at all levels. I have also experienced examples of good and efficient work in both so sweeping generalisations about either are totally misleading.

More Tea Vicar wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

mrwrighty wrote:
Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

There should certainly be a cap on wages. The Chief Executive should be on no more than £50k, while everyone below her should have their salary based on their position in the hierachy. If that means something like £10k for some, then so be it. We pay these people to deliver council services, not to simply line their pockets with extortionate wages. Staff chose to work for the council to provide services, and that should be their main raison d'etre, not to earn massive salaries at the expense of the tax payer.

Your grip on reality seems to weaken with each passing day. £50k salary for the Chief Executive for an organisation like the County Council? If you suggested a figure like that for a similarly sized company in the private sector, the men in white coats would be sent for!

Local government is an organisation for providing statutory and essential services to the tax payer, not an organisation where employees go o work to earn as much as possible like the private sector. As much of the funding should go to services, not to line the pockets of staff. The Chief Executive, Directors and Department heads all have a combined salary of over £1m. Staff below are also on excessive wages.

How are you supposed to attract talented capable staff on the sort of salaries you are suggesting. Answer me this: if local government salaries are so exorbitant - how come there isn't a queue of people from the private sector wanting jobs in local government stretching from County Hall to Timbuktu?

There is no sign that we actually have particularly 'talented' people. And the job doesn't really require much obvious 'talent' anyway. These people don't make decisions under pressure, or on their own. They never, ever, take responsibility for anything.

Your question about why private sector people aren't lining up to take public sector jobs reveals part of the problem with the thinking current in the public sector. You don't really seem to understand life 'outside'.

Many in the private sector find the lack of responsibility, competence and commitment that characterises so much local government management hard to live with. Many have skills that would be difficult to use within the public sector.

But the real issue is, the degree of responsibility, hard work, commitment etc required of a senior local government manager is relatively low, more akin to a department head in an SME than the head of a large company.

I would argue for good wages for the likes of binmen and cleaners, and acceptable rather than exorbitant salaries for those at the top. £50 to £70k is more than enough for the managers that stay on, after a cull reducing their numbers by half.

And if they're so good, I'm sure they can find better elsewhere.

There you go again, attributing an almost saintly nobility to people working in the private sector: "many in the private sector find the lack of responsibility, competence and commitment that characterises so much local government management hard to live with". First and foremost, people work for money, everything else is secondary, no matter where they work.

If it were possible, there ought to be a job swap scheme whereby managers from the public and private sectors trade place for a couple of years. The community as a whole would benefit.

More Tea Vicar says.
You say
" If its so good then why haven't you been for a job? "
Easy. Many people have skills that could never be used in the public sector. THAT'S WHY YOU NEED THE COUNCIL EMPLOYEES EXPERTS, You could just as easily ask why public sector workers didn't apply to be in the private sector..MAINLY THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL NOT PAY FOR THE SERVICE REQUIRED

You say
"most of the basher's are usually inept at what they do"
You've absolutely no reason to say that. None at all. YES i do in my experience with the work i do in conjunction with the council and the private side, the Private side is definately poor at best. Sounds like hysterical wishful thinking.(?)

You say
", well give me the council staff expertise everytime as most the Godly private sector are utter crap at what they do "
Some of the private sector absolutely is crap at what it does. But people get sacked for that.(NOT always unfortunately) Don't talk about bankers, (Did i mention them? no)it's too predictable, and too limited, and you'll just get a list of all the public sector foul-ups...Redditch, North Staff etc.( Yes quite right but get some info on the Public sector **** ups) and compare.They cost the taxpayer huge amounts.

I for one don't regard outsourcing as a solution for anything in general. In most cases, the answer is, just stop the service if it isn't necessary, or do it right if it is.
Most the services i deal with are run properly by the council, Private services are run on profit alone and be careful if we lose the main line services to the Private sector as they already are causing huge problems due to lack of experience, I can only speak from my experience so that's what i have put but so many comments on here are ill informed opinions with no fact base.

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Fishy wrote:
I am a council employee and please bear in mind the following points before slagging us off:

We are tax payers ourselves

We use the county's roads, have children in school etc just like everyone else

We have had our pay frozen for two years and been forced to take mandatory unpaid leave

WCC has a relatively low sickness absence rate compared to most employers and we do not receive pay for the first three days of sickness

My colleagues and I are doing our best in difficult and uncertain times.

Worcestershire is one of the lowest funded and highest performing councils in the country

You might be tax payers, but you get money out, we don't. Lots of people have had pay freezes, or been made redundant.

Low funding may be an issue, but there is also very obvious waste. Jobs are often made necessary by Council mistakes, and poorly dealt with, meaning they have to be done again (poor road repairs, planting greenery where it is bound to be an obstruction, so it always has to be cut back).

High performance? Maybe, but nothing terribly visible. Streets aren't particularly clean,for example.

You say WCC has a low absenteeism rate compared to most employers. Are you sure about that? Genuine question. I recall stats in the WN, saying the WCC absenteeism rate was about 10 or 11 days per year compared to c 6 in the private sector.

I actually have some sympathy with the 'ordinary people' working for the Council, and very little for the senior management. But absenteeism, and the general lack of performance, doesn't help with perceptions.

When measures were put in place a few years ago to further reduce sickness absence we were told that it was already low compared to other employers. If you want to know more about how that statistic was obtained then I suggest you put in a freedom of information request.

I am not trying to make out that our working conditions are terrible but they are hardly cushy as some people on this board seem to think and we've had a number of staff leave for the private sector over the last couple of years.

Whilst I cannot speak for the entire organisation my colleagues and I are doing our best to not only keep things going but to make efficiency savings without compromising delivery. We may not always get it right but that's what happens when an organisation is run by humans and stepping into the unknown is involved.

We too expect our taxes to be used efficiently and effectively. Staff often question the chief exec if they perceive that this has not happened. We travel on the county's roads, send our children to school, have elderly relatives in need of care etc too.

I don't come on the WN site and slag off everyone working in the private sector. Would those of you in the private sector please do the same by us.

Fishy wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Fishy wrote:
I am a council employee and please bear in mind the following points before slagging us off:

We are tax payers ourselves

We use the county's roads, have children in school etc just like everyone else

We have had our pay frozen for two years and been forced to take mandatory unpaid leave

WCC has a relatively low sickness absence rate compared to most employers and we do not receive pay for the first three days of sickness

My colleagues and I are doing our best in difficult and uncertain times.

Worcestershire is one of the lowest funded and highest performing councils in the country

You might be tax payers, but you get money out, we don't. Lots of people have had pay freezes, or been made redundant.

Low funding may be an issue, but there is also very obvious waste. Jobs are often made necessary by Council mistakes, and poorly dealt with, meaning they have to be done again (poor road repairs, planting greenery where it is bound to be an obstruction, so it always has to be cut back).

High performance? Maybe, but nothing terribly visible. Streets aren't particularly clean,for example.

You say WCC has a low absenteeism rate compared to most employers. Are you sure about that? Genuine question. I recall stats in the WN, saying the WCC absenteeism rate was about 10 or 11 days per year compared to c 6 in the private sector.

I actually have some sympathy with the 'ordinary people' working for the Council, and very little for the senior management. But absenteeism, and the general lack of performance, doesn't help with perceptions.

When measures were put in place a few years ago to further reduce sickness absence we were told that it was already low compared to other employers. If you want to know more about how that statistic was obtained then I suggest you put in a freedom of information request.

I am not trying to make out that our working conditions are terrible but they are hardly cushy as some people on this board seem to think and we've had a number of staff leave for the private sector over the last couple of years.

Whilst I cannot speak for the entire organisation my colleagues and I are doing our best to not only keep things going but to make efficiency savings without compromising delivery. We may not always get it right but that's what happens when an organisation is run by humans and stepping into the unknown is involved.

We too expect our taxes to be used efficiently and effectively. Staff often question the chief exec if they perceive that this has not happened. We travel on the county's roads, send our children to school, have elderly relatives in need of care etc too.

I don't come on the WN site and slag off everyone working in the private sector. Would those of you in the private sector please do the same by us.

I fear Fishy you are wasting your time. Regardless of the realities and truth, so many people just have an irrational hatred towards council workers, which kicked in when the recession began, at the time when the government's spin was somehow apportioning blame for the economic woes and private sector job losses on to council workers. Many people believed the spin and the angst against council workers has since increased. So many people now see council workers as overpaid, underworked and incompetent, and the root cause for this country's problems, and nothing you say will change their minds.

I know people who work for the council and a significant proportion of the enquiries they now deal with have an element of council staff bashing, while those that attend meetings where the public are involved invariably attract comments like "you're overpaid", "you don't know what you're doing", "all my taxes go towards your wages and benefits" etc etc. Some staff are even being verbally abused.

As for the job losses, when the recession started, a survey was carried out where private sector companies were asked whether they'd consider employing council staff who lost their jobs. A significant number said no because council staff lacked a hard working ethic, skills, competence and honesty. I suspect if that survey was conducted again, the results would be the same.

The anger against council workers will continue to increase while I suspect these job losses were privately greeted with joy amongst the tax payer. And many would simply like so see councils abolished and all services going to the private sector or to residents and parish councils, through localism, because they genuinely believe they could do a better job for less money.

My daughter used to work for Worcestershire County Council and people there worked a lot harder, were more efficient, dedicated, genuinely tried their best and often worked beyond their allocated weekly hours. Where she works now, which is at a well known private firm, work is a doddle, so much waste and inefficiency occurs, there is a lot of deadwood, more errors of judgement, higher absenteeism rates and higher salaries for doing less across the board. The problem is, the private sector is all about making money, and when errors occur, they can be accommodated. When something goes wrong at the council, all hell breaks loose and the public start calling for heads, because it's their money that has been wasted.

MulsanneChap wrote:

Fishy wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Fishy wrote:
I am a council employee and please bear in mind the following points before slagging us off:

We are tax payers ourselves

We use the county's roads, have children in school etc just like everyone else

We have had our pay frozen for two years and been forced to take mandatory unpaid leave

WCC has a relatively low sickness absence rate compared to most employers and we do not receive pay for the first three days of sickness

My colleagues and I are doing our best in difficult and uncertain times.

Worcestershire is one of the lowest funded and highest performing councils in the country

You might be tax payers, but you get money out, we don't. Lots of people have had pay freezes, or been made redundant.

Low funding may be an issue, but there is also very obvious waste. Jobs are often made necessary by Council mistakes, and poorly dealt with, meaning they have to be done again (poor road repairs, planting greenery where it is bound to be an obstruction, so it always has to be cut back).

High performance? Maybe, but nothing terribly visible. Streets aren't particularly clean,for example.

You say WCC has a low absenteeism rate compared to most employers. Are you sure about that? Genuine question. I recall stats in the WN, saying the WCC absenteeism rate was about 10 or 11 days per year compared to c 6 in the private sector.

I actually have some sympathy with the 'ordinary people' working for the Council, and very little for the senior management. But absenteeism, and the general lack of performance, doesn't help with perceptions.

When measures were put in place a few years ago to further reduce sickness absence we were told that it was already low compared to other employers. If you want to know more about how that statistic was obtained then I suggest you put in a freedom of information request.

I am not trying to make out that our working conditions are terrible but they are hardly cushy as some people on this board seem to think and we've had a number of staff leave for the private sector over the last couple of years.

Whilst I cannot speak for the entire organisation my colleagues and I are doing our best to not only keep things going but to make efficiency savings without compromising delivery. We may not always get it right but that's what happens when an organisation is run by humans and stepping into the unknown is involved.

We too expect our taxes to be used efficiently and effectively. Staff often question the chief exec if they perceive that this has not happened. We travel on the county's roads, send our children to school, have elderly relatives in need of care etc too.

I don't come on the WN site and slag off everyone working in the private sector. Would those of you in the private sector please do the same by us.

I fear Fishy you are wasting your time. Regardless of the realities and truth, so many people just have an irrational hatred towards council workers, which kicked in when the recession began, at the time when the government's spin was somehow apportioning blame for the economic woes and private sector job losses on to council workers. Many people believed the spin and the angst against council workers has since increased. So many people now see council workers as overpaid, underworked and incompetent, and the root cause for this country's problems, and nothing you say will change their minds.

I know people who work for the council and a significant proportion of the enquiries they now deal with have an element of council staff bashing, while those that attend meetings where the public are involved invariably attract comments like "you're overpaid", "you don't know what you're doing", "all my taxes go towards your wages and benefits" etc etc. Some staff are even being verbally abused.

As for the job losses, when the recession started, a survey was carried out where private sector companies were asked whether they'd consider employing council staff who lost their jobs. A significant number said no because council staff lacked a hard working ethic, skills, competence and honesty. I suspect if that survey was conducted again, the results would be the same.

The anger against council workers will continue to increase while I suspect these job losses were privately greeted with joy amongst the tax payer. And many would simply like so see councils abolished and all services going to the private sector or to residents and parish councils, through localism, because they genuinely believe they could do a better job for less money.

I think you've got a point MulsanneChap. Council employees have a vested interest in efficient service delivery so as to avoid our jobs being cut but so many people seem oblivious to that fact.

MulsanneChap wrote:

Fishy wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Fishy wrote:
I am a council employee and please bear in mind the following points before slagging us off:

We are tax payers ourselves

We use the county's roads, have children in school etc just like everyone else

We have had our pay frozen for two years and been forced to take mandatory unpaid leave

WCC has a relatively low sickness absence rate compared to most employers and we do not receive pay for the first three days of sickness

My colleagues and I are doing our best in difficult and uncertain times.

Worcestershire is one of the lowest funded and highest performing councils in the country

You might be tax payers, but you get money out, we don't. Lots of people have had pay freezes, or been made redundant.

Low funding may be an issue, but there is also very obvious waste. Jobs are often made necessary by Council mistakes, and poorly dealt with, meaning they have to be done again (poor road repairs, planting greenery where it is bound to be an obstruction, so it always has to be cut back).

High performance? Maybe, but nothing terribly visible. Streets aren't particularly clean,for example.

You say WCC has a low absenteeism rate compared to most employers. Are you sure about that? Genuine question. I recall stats in the WN, saying the WCC absenteeism rate was about 10 or 11 days per year compared to c 6 in the private sector.

I actually have some sympathy with the 'ordinary people' working for the Council, and very little for the senior management. But absenteeism, and the general lack of performance, doesn't help with perceptions.

When measures were put in place a few years ago to further reduce sickness absence we were told that it was already low compared to other employers. If you want to know more about how that statistic was obtained then I suggest you put in a freedom of information request.

I am not trying to make out that our working conditions are terrible but they are hardly cushy as some people on this board seem to think and we've had a number of staff leave for the private sector over the last couple of years.

Whilst I cannot speak for the entire organisation my colleagues and I are doing our best to not only keep things going but to make efficiency savings without compromising delivery. We may not always get it right but that's what happens when an organisation is run by humans and stepping into the unknown is involved.

We too expect our taxes to be used efficiently and effectively. Staff often question the chief exec if they perceive that this has not happened. We travel on the county's roads, send our children to school, have elderly relatives in need of care etc too.

I don't come on the WN site and slag off everyone working in the private sector. Would those of you in the private sector please do the same by us.

I fear Fishy you are wasting your time. Regardless of the realities and truth, so many people just have an irrational hatred towards council workers, which kicked in when the recession began, at the time when the government's spin was somehow apportioning blame for the economic woes and private sector job losses on to council workers. Many people believed the spin and the angst against council workers has since increased. So many people now see council workers as overpaid, underworked and incompetent, and the root cause for this country's problems, and nothing you say will change their minds.

I know people who work for the council and a significant proportion of the enquiries they now deal with have an element of council staff bashing, while those that attend meetings where the public are involved invariably attract comments like "you're overpaid", "you don't know what you're doing", "all my taxes go towards your wages and benefits" etc etc. Some staff are even being verbally abused.

As for the job losses, when the recession started, a survey was carried out where private sector companies were asked whether they'd consider employing council staff who lost their jobs. A significant number said no because council staff lacked a hard working ethic, skills, competence and honesty. I suspect if that survey was conducted again, the results would be the same.

The anger against council workers will continue to increase while I suspect these job losses were privately greeted with joy amongst the tax payer. And many would simply like so see councils abolished and all services going to the private sector or to residents and parish councils, through localism, because they genuinely believe they could do a better job for less money.

In fairness, those negative attitudes among the public and potential employers might well be based on experience.

It can be absolutely infuriating dealing with the Council. And people see ****-ups being made, but no one ever being responsible.

The standard public sector response to that, which is to point at the bankers, doesn't hold water, just shows how little many in the public sector understand about private sector reality.

Many businesses and individuals have suffered because of the City, which is very far removed from the reality of life for the average SME.

More importantly, look at the High Street ,and all those businesses and jobs that have gone. That's people paying the price for the state of the economy (largely induced by profligate public spending), and changes in the business world, and failure to adapt.

There is resentment against big businesses that are 'too big to fail' and the public sector, which are seen as broadly similar, not diamtrically opposed.

Omicron wrote:
Tell me MTV. Have you ever worked at County Hall or anywhere else in the public sector?

tell me Omicron, what makes you think you can just 'tell' people to do things!

And you seem to be suggesting that only those who are part of an organisation can comment on it, which is utter nonsense.

We all deal with a variety of organisations, from supermarkets through utilities etc, most days.

We are able to form an opinion of them, based on our experience of them.

Presumably, you were never in the Wehrmacht or the SS. I bet you've got an opinion on them, haven't you?

Well, all I can say is that based on my experiencing in dealing with the council, I have generally found their abilities and competence less than satisfactory. They fail to take responsibility, have no idea what they're on about at times, barely at work and never do anything or deliver a service which I, a tax payer, request. Based on my experience, I have little sympathy with these job losses and if they do somehow have the competence to be employed in the private sector, they'll soon know what hard work and poor working conditions are like, not to mention low pay.

Unortunately Wîlko staff hands are often tied by senior management or central government and what someone asks or expects us to do may not be part of our role.
I have had phone calls from people in difficult situations and wished that I could simply fix them but it isn't that easy. I think some other individuals have made up their minds before even speaking to us as they talk in an aggressive, confrontational manner then criticise or even threaten us for telling the truth. I have been reported for not giving out information that the council doesn't even hold.

As for our competencies to work in the private sector I did work there previously along with many of my colleagues and we got on just fine.


A fine example of employees doing nothing all day would be Kays staff during the time between all work being transferred to Manchester and their contracts ending.

Fishy wrote:
Unortunately Wîlko staff hands are often tied by senior management or central government and what someone asks or expects us to do may not be part of our role.
I have had phone calls from people in difficult situations and wished that I could simply fix them but it isn't that easy. I think some other individuals have made up their minds before even speaking to us as they talk in an aggressive, confrontational manner then criticise or even threaten us for telling the truth. I have been reported for not giving out information that the council doesn't even hold.

As for our competencies to work in the private sector I did work there previously along with many of my colleagues and we got on just fine.


A fine example of employees doing nothing all day would be Kays staff during the time between all work being transferred to Manchester and their contracts ending.

I am the first to say that it is not a question of 'public sector, crap, private sector, great'.

There are plenty of examples of crap companies and of great public sector organisations. Locally, I've found ambulances turn up quicker than roadside repair companies. But then, I've found that casualty was crap. And as for the police...

What you say about Kays sounds far from unique. Quite often, when I hear of companies going out of business, I can recall receiving pretty poor service from them.

But the Council, and local government in general, does seem to have a poor reputation, and that does stem largely not just from the unforced errors, like the road design foul-ups, but the inability or unwillingness of staff to help when problems arise.

And the general answer, that 'our hands are tied', or 'well, it's policy, so it's what you voted for' (I've heard variants of both) is the salt in the wound.

MoreTeaVicar if you want things to change get a petition and informed case together and lobby for it. People power can work and untie public sector hands over the issue in question.

Last Friday a very distressed woman was left stranded at county hall after coming to register the death of her husband and her taxi refusing to collect her in the snow. Registry office staff arranged for a colleague with a 4x4 to take her home and whilst these were exceptional circumstances its not like we never go beyond the call of duty.

Incidentally my reason for coming to work for WCC was that I found I gained a sense of satisfcation from providing a public service. I had been made redundant from a private sector job due to cuts, came to WCC as an agency temp and when a permanent job came up I applied for it. I work at least as hard if not harder than I did in the private sector and the slightly better working conditions boost my productivity.

Well said Fishy, You will never change peoples view of council workers but they pick on the wrong ones, its the £40,000 per annum plus managers who have very little if any of experience of the job they do, they rely on the workers to carry them, (that is a fact i have come across) that is the area where cuts need to be made as there are too many of them some who only work 3 days? plus the higher paid who turn up and do very little or (work from home) yet can't be contacted?? yes know that one too,,
Staff have to work to the guide lines, they have had a lot of changes to there work contracts, lost hours and money yet the council bashers will still not be satisfied.

I know of the lady who was taken home, would that have been done by a private company? very much doubt it.

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Omicron wrote: Tell me MTV. Have you ever worked at County Hall or anywhere else in the public sector?

tell me Omicron, what makes you think you can just 'tell' people to do things! And you seem to be suggesting that only those who are part of an organisation can comment on it, which is utter nonsense. We all deal with a variety of organisations, from supermarkets through utilities etc, most days. We are able to form an opinion of them, based on our experience of them. Presumably, you were never in the Wehrmacht or the SS. I bet you've got an opinion on them, haven't you?

I was not aware I was "telling" you anything - just asking a simple question where a simple "yes" or "no" answer would suffice.
The reason I asked that question is because you come across as the kind of person that makes criticisms based on perception rather than reality which is the easiest way to lose credibility.
And as for your making a comparison with the Wehrmacht or SS - that's rather childish isn't it?

The Doosra wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

The Doosra wrote:

farmeralan1963 wrote:

mrwrighty wrote:
Cuts in these organisations always happen from the bottom up, not the top down. Front line services that we pay for will be reduced or axed all together. I am not paying my council tax to fill the pockets of those in charge, but to provide the services that they are contracted to provide. All councils in the UK need a cull on non-jobs. Any post paying more than 50k should be reviewed immediately.

There should certainly be a cap on wages. The Chief Executive should be on no more than £50k, while everyone below her should have their salary based on their position in the hierachy. If that means something like £10k for some, then so be it. We pay these people to deliver council services, not to simply line their pockets with extortionate wages. Staff chose to work for the council to provide services, and that should be their main raison d'etre, not to earn massive salaries at the expense of the tax payer.

Your grip on reality seems to weaken with each passing day. £50k salary for the Chief Executive for an organisation like the County Council? If you suggested a figure like that for a similarly sized company in the private sector, the men in white coats would be sent for!

Local government is an organisation for providing statutory and essential services to the tax payer, not an organisation where employees go o work to earn as much as possible like the private sector. As much of the funding should go to services, not to line the pockets of staff. The Chief Executive, Directors and Department heads all have a combined salary of over £1m. Staff below are also on excessive wages.

How are you supposed to attract talented capable staff on the sort of salaries you are suggesting. Answer me this: if local government salaries are so exorbitant - how come there isn't a queue of people from the private sector wanting jobs in local government stretching from County Hall to Timbuktu?

There is no sign that we actually have particularly 'talented' people. And the job doesn't really require much obvious 'talent' anyway. These people don't make decisions under pressure, or on their own. They never, ever, take responsibility for anything.

Your question about why private sector people aren't lining up to take public sector jobs reveals part of the problem with the thinking current in the public sector. You don't really seem to understand life 'outside'.

Many in the private sector find the lack of responsibility, competence and commitment that characterises so much local government management hard to live with. Many have skills that would be difficult to use within the public sector.

But the real issue is, the degree of responsibility, hard work, commitment etc required of a senior local government manager is relatively low, more akin to a department head in an SME than the head of a large company.

I would argue for good wages for the likes of binmen and cleaners, and acceptable rather than exorbitant salaries for those at the top. £50 to £70k is more than enough for the managers that stay on, after a cull reducing their numbers by half.

And if they're so good, I'm sure they can find better elsewhere.

There you go again, attributing an almost saintly nobility to people working in the private sector: "many in the private sector find the lack of responsibility, competence and commitment that characterises so much local government management hard to live with". First and foremost, people work for money, everything else is secondary, no matter where they work.

If it were possible, there ought to be a job swap scheme whereby managers from the public and private sectors trade place for a couple of years. The community as a whole would benefit.

Wrong. I've said elsewhere but I'll say it again. There are some crap companies. Private sector does not automatically mean good, public sector does not automatically mean bad.

The problems with the public sector stem from the fact that people never seem to be held to account, or take responsibility for anything.

That can happen in the private sector too, but then you see companies going under. You don't tend to see that in the public sector. What you do see though is very obvious waste and inefficiency.

Those fouled up road "improvements" and botched repairs for example. And no one owning up or getting sacked.

I know, I know…banks. But they are as far from the norm in the private sector as they are from the public sector.

Omicron wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:

Omicron wrote: Tell me MTV. Have you ever worked at County Hall or anywhere else in the public sector?

tell me Omicron, what makes you think you can just 'tell' people to do things! And you seem to be suggesting that only those who are part of an organisation can comment on it, which is utter nonsense. We all deal with a variety of organisations, from supermarkets through utilities etc, most days. We are able to form an opinion of them, based on our experience of them. Presumably, you were never in the Wehrmacht or the SS. I bet you've got an opinion on them, haven't you?

I was not aware I was "telling" you anything - just asking a simple question where a simple "yes" or "no" answer would suffice.
The reason I asked that question is because you come across as the kind of person that makes criticisms based on perception rather than reality which is the easiest way to lose credibility.
And as for your making a comparison with the Wehrmacht or SS - that's rather childish isn't it?

Which bit of "tell me" do you not think means "tell me"? I.e. an order, which is unacceptable.

And by your reasoning, only those who are in an organisation are entitled to comment on it.

You're wrong. It is easy to spot cases where the Council gets things very wrong, sometimes through stupidity, sometimes maybe to ensure a bit of job security.

Your reaction to the Wehrmacht mention is bit touchy. I merely point out that you don't have to have been in it to have a view on it. Its actions speak for themselves.

I'm not arguing that the private sector is perfect. Anything but. In fact I generally oppose outsourcing of key public services. I just want the public sector to do its job right and take responsibility for mistakes when they're made.

My word MTV you don't like it when someone doesn't agree with you do you?
........and you still havn't answered my question have you?
Oh and by the way - and I spent 5 years working for WCC on short term contracts after spending 45 years in the private sector.
That 5 years was long enough to get to know how the council works so I assume that that would make me more qualified than you to pass comment on council practices, if I need to. Enough said.

The Doosra wrote:

More Tea Vicar wrote:

The Doosra wrote:
May I respectfully suggest to Saucerer and Redhillman that before they start spitting their ill-informed bile that they see what services will no longer be offered as a result of these cuts.

I think the point is, the cuts will probably affect lower-paid workers,and services, but not the people at the top.

And it's the people at the top that are the ones that need cutting.

There is a sensible debate to be had about how local services should be delivered - the John Lewis model mentioned in another article is worth exploring as is the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors. I just wish we could get past the "private sector good - public sector bad" excuse for discussion, it's too simplistic for words.

I agree, that's why I don't do it. There is legitimate criticism that can very easily be levelled at certain elements of the public, and of the private, sector.

It is perfectly legitimate to criticise Worcester(shire) local government for several reasons.

And again, I sympathise with many 'rank and file' staff, but absolutely not with the senior management, and certain 'non-jobs', which is where cuts should be made.

mayall8808 wrote:
More Tea Vicar says.
You say
" If its so good then why haven't you been for a job? "
Easy. Many people have skills that could never be used in the public sector. THAT'S WHY YOU NEED THE COUNCIL EMPLOYEES EXPERTS, You could just as easily ask why public sector workers didn't apply to be in the private sector..MAINLY THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL NOT PAY FOR THE SERVICE REQUIRED

You say
"most of the basher's are usually inept at what they do"
You've absolutely no reason to say that. None at all. YES i do in my experience with the work i do in conjunction with the council and the private side, the Private side is definately poor at best. Sounds like hysterical wishful thinking.(?)

You say
", well give me the council staff expertise everytime as most the Godly private sector are utter crap at what they do "
Some of the private sector absolutely is crap at what it does. But people get sacked for that.(NOT always unfortunately) Don't talk about bankers, (Did i mention them? no)it's too predictable, and too limited, and you'll just get a list of all the public sector foul-ups...Redditch, North Staff etc.( Yes quite right but get some info on the Public sector **** ups) and compare.They cost the taxpayer huge amounts.

I for one don't regard outsourcing as a solution for anything in general. In most cases, the answer is, just stop the service if it isn't necessary, or do it right if it is.
Most the services i deal with are run properly by the council, Private services are run on profit alone and be careful if we lose the main line services to the Private sector as they already are causing huge problems due to lack of experience, I can only speak from my experience so that's what i have put but so many comments on here are ill informed opinions with no fact base.

Mayall, I can't speak for your experience. But seriously, look at the unforced errors and foul-ups by the Council and the obvious waste.

If the Council was making cars, they'd barely get as far as the Council's poorly-designed roundabouts.

Fishy wrote:
MoreTeaVicar if you want things to change get a petition and informed case together and lobby for it. People power can work and untie public sector hands over the issue in question.

Last Friday a very distressed woman was left stranded at county hall after coming to register the death of her husband and her taxi refusing to collect her in the snow. Registry office staff arranged for a colleague with a 4x4 to take her home and whilst these were exceptional circumstances its not like we never go beyond the call of duty.

Incidentally my reason for coming to work for WCC was that I found I gained a sense of satisfcation from providing a public service. I had been made redundant from a private sector job due to cuts, came to WCC as an agency temp and when a permanent job came up I applied for it. I work at least as hard if not harder than I did in the private sector and the slightly better working conditions boost my productivity.

I've mentioned that I've heard that reasoning from Council people before.
What you're essentially saying is that if the service is crap, it's up to the taxpayer to change it.

There is very little we, the public, can do. Unlike in the private sector, we, as customers, cannot take our money elsewhere.

The answer you give, effectively attempting to teflon the blame for poor service off onto the consumer, is precisely what irritates people.

Omicron wrote:
My word MTV you don't like it when someone doesn't agree with you do you?
........and you still havn't answered my question have you?
Oh and by the way - and I spent 5 years working for WCC on short term contracts after spending 45 years in the private sector.
That 5 years was long enough to get to know how the council works so I assume that that would make me more qualified than you to pass comment on council practices, if I need to. Enough said.

No, I welcome informed, well-reasoned debate, and dislike authoritarianism. Hence my dislike of your attempt to give orders, and your inability to realise that that was what you were doing.

And no, your experience does not make you qualified to judge. Could just as easily be argued that you got tired of working in the private sector, found a cushy number in the public sector, and have a vested interest to protect.

And again, I don't regard either the public or the private sector as being intrinsically good or bad. But there is fairly obvious waste and incompetence in the council.