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

[sevendwarves]

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???

"It's a total myth that all public sector jobs are cushy and all private sector workers are hacking away at the coalface for peanuts."

Cripes knows if you're arguing with me there. See earlier post.

It's none of your business what "working with public money" means.. want my address and phone number too?

I suppose if you're basing your belief that there would be no capable candidates under these inflated salaries, on the grounds that many who earn these inflated salaries right now are themselves poor performers, then perhaps we should be arguing for higher pay awards until all councils are properly run.

Great - an other MN public sector vs private sector argument.

But the John Lewis rule almost certainly applies here.

The Council Exec in the OP's example is earning £218k.

That means that the lowest full-time employee in teh council would have to be earning just over £10k per annum. Ie barely more than minimum wage. So that fits with the John Lewis model.

Mbnks -- someone else said that at 80,000 a council leader would be earning less than a head of dept. Take issue with them.

I don't want any details about you - but you're making sweeping claims, and backing them up by claiming "I've worked with public money".

I was simply wondering what particular insight that gives you.

"I trained (for 5 years, as it happens) to get my job at the Council. I'm very good at what I do and could earn lots more in the private sector. I choose not to, because I am trying to improve, not worsen, our environment. I'm certainly not a feckless waste of public money and I also don't see why I should live on the breadline.

Neither do I. However earning less than 200,00 is not living on the breadline, the last time I looked.

I actually can't believe this. I was brought up by my socialist parents to believe that inequalities between "do-ers" and "tellers" should be minimised. That the work at the front-line, those lower down the ladder, should be recognised and respected as essential, and valued, and that the management pedestal and pay inflation was contrary to the ideals and aspirations of striving towards equality.

And now, a lot of Labour voters (maybe it's just one?) telling me that's wrong? Defending the right to inflated packages?

Shome mistake shurely?

Maybe we arent all socialists?

Yes, maybe you aren't, maybe I'm the most genuinely left-wing person here!

it seems to be so, however

I'm not defending the right to inflated packages - I've already said that I think executive pay over the whole economy is grossly inflated.

But I AM saying you can't pick on the public sector in isolation and use that as some convenient guinea pig.

If you want to attack grossly overpaid fat cats please do - I would agree with you all the way - but actually the councils aren't particularly good examples and it's certainly unfair to pick on them in isolation and to the exclusion of the real offenders - the private sector.

I think our dustman shuold earn more tham DC.

And sorry but when you made statements like "Public sector is not a place where your job is particularly at risk for failure to perform. If at all. It's very much a world of empire building, back scratching and shoe ins" it wasn't at all clear that you were talking about the upper echelons. It sounded as if you thought ALL public sector employees were like this which is simply not true.

I'm in full agreement that this does go on in the top level - but of ALL organisations. Pretending that executive pay and back-scratching is a public/private issue is missing the elephant in the room.

"Public sector is not a place where your job is particularly at risk for failure to perform."

Hahaha. More deep ignorance. Senior level staff are frequently sacked if they don't perform. I can name 5 in my own organisation alone in the past year. And before you reflexively assume they got golden handshakes, they didn't. They're also vulnerable to removal due to political changes.

I'm not sure why you've brought the Labour v Tory issue up. It's anything but. The CEX referred to above works for a Tory council. It isn't a Labour/Tory issue to consider that people should be sufficiently rewarded for work in the public sector. There must be a very very tiny handful of public sector organisations where the John Lewis model doesn't apply, and those managers are taking the piss. But nowhere near to the extent that senior managers in private companies.

What about charity CE salaries? Should they be doing it for nothing?

"And sorry but when you made statements like "Public sector is not a place where your job is particularly at risk for failure to perform. If at all. It's very much a world of empire building, back scratching and shoe ins" it wasn't at all clear that you were talking about the upper echelons. It sounded as if you thought ALL public sector employees were like this which is simply not true."

Fair enough. I very much mean the upper echelons. Also I certainly agree re: fat cats -- I have consistency here. I make some exceptions: businessmen, entrepreneurs, job-creating jobs: heavy-risk taking jobs: and education, where all pay grades ought to be better rewarded. Back later.

I'm left wing in nature but that ahs to be applied to the real world out there. I refus yo adhere to any one philosophy and prefer to make up mind on issues not on the basis of how it fits in with X- unless X is real world and combines real world market factors with making the best decision wrt to real essential srvices.

My job should be in a PubS role. It isn't, I am self employed. I am a carer support worker: by my estimation I reckon that wipes about half of the people who need help off my radar entirely. But the public sector doesn;t do 'frills' any more.

I can't see how that really would be helped by employing people who by their annual take couldn't get a middle ranked managerial role in a decently sized multinational.

The PM doesnt even write his own speeches! He doesnt think of all the policies, he doesnt deal with all everyday running of gvt departments - why should he be paid more?

If we go back 20 years CEX pay was a lot lower both in the private and public sector. What happened? Were the 'top' people back then all just rubbish then. Why have we had these out of control pay increases. Please somewhere come on and enlighten me.

Gawd - I think it would take an economist and a book to answer that question.

I think in part it's a perception of the role of "manager" being interchangeable now, so there is an idea that if you can manage a multinational company selling paperclips, you can equally well manage a national chain bookseller, or a council, or any other organisation you care to name. I'm not sure if that's true - but there definitely seems to be an idea that "management" in and of itself is a quantifiable and transferable skill.

And secondly I think there is a perception of the labour market as being much more mobile, and an idea that the available talent will migrate abroad if not kept sufficiently pampered. And all that has provided an excuse, if not a reason, for executives to drive up their own pay.

But I don't think it's hugely surprising that the people in the driving seat have made sure that more of the money flows their way. I'm sure they honestly do feel they are worth their salaries and largely irreplaceable and are doing their organisation a favour by ensuring they have sufficient remuneration to retain their own skills - however we all think we're worth our salaries and irreplaceable - at least most of us do. My dad is the only manager I've ever heard state out loud that he felt he was overpaid.

Appletrees - sorry didn't mean to sound like my £80k comment was aimed at you, it was aimed at the poster in question.

But I do wonder what you consider the upper echelons? I manage 11 staff. Am I the upper echelons? Or is it people who earn more than, say, £50k? Which I don't.

Oh good, more public sector votrol . Apple, it sounds to me a little like you have a chip on your shoulder.

Surely you want you LA to perform the best it possibly can? To do well in Audit? To maxamise every penny of public money it spends? To provide an approprite range of sevices from education to recycling that meet need whilst not making huge council tax inflation demands?

Well, that takes a great, GREAT deal of knowledge, skill and experience. The pressure is huge, the risk of public backlash great and believe me job security when you get to CE posts, that are so relaint on public approval, hangs constantly in the balance. Members are answerable to the public and do not like getting flack about unpopular CE's. And Members are the driving force behind any LA.

Why on EARTH should people not be paid an appopriate wage for such a position? And to me approprite means what it takes to get the best person to do the job, whilst in line with provate sector salaries.

Can I please try to dispel some myths?

'Gold plated pension' - You mean my conributory (the Daily Mail always forgets to add that bit) Final salary scheme? Well thats a dead duck and will be gone with the decade, you mark my words.

'Perks' - I assume you mean flexi? Like the 15 hours I have accrued this months that I don't have time to take? No bonuses (as should be the case) and no cribo parties etc.

'High pay' - Having a laugh, right? I would walk out the door into a buyers role tomorrow and easily earn £10k more then I do now. Funnily enough I like doing what I do and want to make a difference to peoples lives, and THAT is the exact reason I get so pist off with the vitrolic comments that have been included in this thread.

'Job security' - I have been though three reviews in the last five years. I have just been told I still have a job. The next review will commence, I suspect, in less then 12 months due to some PCT staff moving over to the LA. So please don't talk to me about a cushy job for life as I am sick of living on a bloody knife edge!

Give us Public Sector Staff (I include MANY, but not all managers in this!) a break. Times are unceratin for everyone and it really upets me when people whoop and chher at the thought of me being out of a job just beacsue I wanted to work with people instead of pencils.

Sorry - got the rage so spelling is crap!

Great post toddlerwrangler. What people don't seem to accept is that they are paying the salaries of every CE in the country, public or private, whose services they use or products they buy. Why the continued vitriol directed at local authority staff in particular? Most LAs have cut so far to the bone there is nothing left to cut.

I'd happily take the CE job for less than £100k. Actually, no I wouldn't because the thought would terrify me. It takes a certain kind of person with a certain kind of experience and that costs money. People are forgetting that the buck stops with these people - they are ultimately responsible - they are the ones who will be hauled over the coals in public when things go wrong. They are responsible for multi million pound budgets. They deserve their money (and I never thought I would say that).

As for the ridiculous comment about the binman being more deserving than the PM. PMSL. Again this is about responsibility. The PM answers to the entire country and is responsible for representing us internationally. And you begrudge him £140k? Pah.

I think it's terrible that management in the public sector are being paid that much when the public sector workers on the front line are being asked to take salary cuts and freezes.