Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think no council employee should earn more than the PM FFS?

91 replies

sevendwarves · 23/01/2011 13:09

link here

She apparently earns more than DC, who has openly shown his displeasure, it said on the politics show including 'packages' her actual annual wage is nearer £300k.

Who decides these people's wages? If the taxpayers (who are effectively paying her 20k a month take-home) aren't happy, and the PM isn't happy, why the fuck does she get paid that amount???

OP posts:
altinkum · 23/01/2011 13:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 23/01/2011 13:23

it is shocking, but I think (I could be wrong here) that salaries for jobs such as Chief Exec have to relate vaguely to a similar position in the private sector. I guess somewhere along the line they need to be able to attract applicants who are going to be good at their job. I think if I had the qualifications/experience behind me to look for a chief exec job I wouldn't be looking at job that paid significantly less than the "norm" for that job iyswim?

I'm not saying it's "right" or "ok" that she's getting paid that much, out of the tax payers pocket - but I guess they have to attract people with the skill set to do the job.

Rosa · 23/01/2011 13:29

I think its wrong - think how much 1% of her salary could help public needs. Salaries paid for from taxpayesr money should be capped. ( However good they are ( or not) at their jobs)

Appletrees · 23/01/2011 13:37

I agree.100pc. Nothing on the BBC dg though at 800,000. They have 300 on over 100k.

coco2901 · 23/01/2011 13:45

Wayne Rooney anyone?! TBH I don't think her salary is ridiculous and Rosa i'm not sure how much difference £3k a year really would make to public needs. They public sector needs to have comparable salaries to the private sector in order to attact the best people to these jobs. I do however think that the PMs salary is a bit low.

SuchProspects · 23/01/2011 13:46

I think it's unreasonable to expect council services to be well run if your pay rates are not competitive with other jobs outside of the public sector that require similar skill sets. I would like to see that equivalence come about by reigning in top end private sector pay.

amicissima · 23/01/2011 13:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

eviscerateyourmemory · 23/01/2011 13:49

I dont think that the comparison to the PM salary is especially relevant - the PM salary is low for the level of responsibility involved, but there are a number of other reasons why people are keen to do the job.

The council does need to be able to attract good applicants for the role, which means that they do have to offer an amount that people will think is reasonable for the job, though it may be that with the changing economic climate and job uncertainty that people may accept jobs at a wage level they would not previously considered.

MissMarjoribanks · 23/01/2011 13:49

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Surely we want public services to be run well?

DH (who works in the private sector btw) says it seems to him that the media would be happier if public servants weren't paid at all. There are so many 'Shock! Horror! Public sector workers are paid!' stories about.

Merrylegs · 23/01/2011 13:49

CCs are huge oraganisations - the Chief Exec salary has to reflect that playing field. Otherwise why would anyone of any calibre apply when they could get twice that in the private sector?
She will most likely have a pay freeze for 2 years though so shouldn't get the PRP.
Hollow laugh re: DC's protestations. As if his PM income is all he lives on.

Rosa · 23/01/2011 13:51

I think that in some areas £3000 can go a long way . Even a local council given an extra £100 can put it to good use for the public benefit.

MissMarjoribanks · 23/01/2011 13:52

Hahahahahaha at 'perks' 'bonuses' and 'gold-plated pensions' when working for the Council...

8 years a local government employee. I hold a management position.

No perks (apart from flexi, which I don't have time to take).

A bonus? Pull the other one.

My pension lump sum? Currently stands at £1500. (I appreciate it will be more than this at retirement, but it's hardly going to give me more than a basic standard of living).

darleneconnor · 23/01/2011 13:57

I dont think public sector salaries should be on the same level as the private sector.

There are some jobs that people should do because they care about the outcomes, not just the bottom line.

Money is not the only or best way to motivate people.

fedupofnamechanging · 23/01/2011 13:57

If we are going to pay people what they worth, then the PM owes us money. Maybe this woman is better at her job, than the PM is at his.
Given his financial background, I am amazed that he is unhappy about this. Being PM is his golden ticket for the rest of his life, in terms of earning potential and he is hardly skint.

The PM seems to be very good at thinking other people should give up money. I think he should lead by example and give up a hefty chunk of his

Original poster
sevendwarves · 23/01/2011 13:59

"Wayne Rooney anyone?!"

The difference is that Wayne Rooney isn't paid by the public. According to her it's justifiable because of all the good work she's doing in Suffolk, yet my local library is still closing and the nearest one will be 10 miles away (I don't drive and am mighty pissed off)

OP posts:
Original poster
sevendwarves · 23/01/2011 14:03

Karmabeliever iirc DC did give up a chunk of his when he came into office, which is why he's said she high paid council bosses should take a pay cut.

OP posts:
amicissima · 23/01/2011 14:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mamatomany · 23/01/2011 14:30

They are being paid at competitive salaries along side the private sector, so i am sure they won't have a problem with having all the benefits of being a private sector employee ie fcuk all.

MainlyMaynie · 23/01/2011 14:46

'There are some jobs that people should do because they care about the outcomes, not just the bottom line.'

Presumably that's people as in other people?

Some public sector salaries have got a bit out of hand, but it's only a very limited number. A public sector organisation I know of recently advertised a CEX post at below market rate, as they agreed that salaries were getting out of hand. They couldn't appoint as they just didn't get applicants who were good enough. Not sure what the answer to that is.

It's ridiculous making comparisons to bankers, the levels of pay and responsibility are totally different. The vast majority of people in CEX roles in the public sector have begun in front line roles like teaching or social work (or pest control, there is at least one!) and worked for many years to get to that position.

MainlyMaynie · 23/01/2011 14:47

mamatomany, what do you imagine the many benefits of being a public sector worker to be?

ModreB · 23/01/2011 14:55

No one seems to take into consideration all the perks that the Prime Minister gets as well as his salary.

For instance, no rent/mortgage, board, bills etc paid for whilst living at Downing Street - what would the rent be on a property that size in central London?

Also rent free use of a large, listed building country house at the weekends - Chequers.

Also free 1st class travel everywhere, etc etc.

As far as I remember, someone worked out that the actual annual renumeration package for the PM when you take all the extras into account is over £600,000.

Puts a slightly different perspective on it, doesn't it?

Kendodd · 23/01/2011 15:01

Yes they get paid far to much, it should be capped, let them all get a job somewhere else, if they can.

The whole "we have to pay the going rate" stuff is rubbish and just results in a arms race. I would like to see what would happen to services if pay was capped. I would bet not a lot of difference.

mamatomany · 23/01/2011 15:02

MM - Flexible and part time working not being turned down, pensions, sickness, generous maternity leave, knowing your redundancy pay will actually happen if you are made redundant as opposed to turning up for work and finding a note on the door, then there was the flexi time system.
I will admit it was 14 years ago I tempted at our local council, for a pitance, maybe times have changed and now the salaries are justified but it was never the case before.

MainlyMaynie · 23/01/2011 15:08

Hahaha at generous maternity leave. I presume you mean pay as the leave is statutory? Hahaha even more. I f'ing wish it was generous. Minimal would be a better word for it. My pension is contributions based and is a separate FUNDED scheme, not based on future tax-payer payments. My organisation pays statutory redundancy pay and notice only. Flexi-time is definitely a benefit (one widely available in the private sector), but since many of us work well over our hours and never get to make use of it it doesn't feel like a great benefit. Many of us work the full day and then attend evening meetings.

I'm not complaining about any of this. They're not bad working conditions, but they're certainly not full of perks. Frankly, experience from 14 years ago is well out of date - the current climate is vastly different.

mamatomany · 23/01/2011 15:17

As I said if my experiences are out of date then the salaries are justified but it was always the case that the public sector was paid less to compensate for good conditions and security.