Fury over £75,800 salary for new role at County Hall (From Evesham Journal)

so they cut the car parking FEES to pay for HER wages.Thought there would be catch.You dont get something for nothing............

According to the article she's already on this salary amount but has been given extra responsibilities which will increase her salary to £80k+ because she's helping out Trish Haines. So is Ms Haines taking a relative pay cut due to her reduced responsibilities? All WCC seem to be doing is shuffling the pack with management jobs making it seem like money saving decisions when some people end up with money MAKING decisions.

Hang on a minute. On the face of it they're doing away with 3 senior staff to save around £300k, & increasing an existing person's responsibilities for an extra less than £10k. That's good isn't it!?

katiekins wrote:
so they cut the car parking FEES to pay for HER wages.Thought there would be catch.You dont get something for nothing............

If you are CUTTING car parking FEES surely there would be LESS money for her WAGES. Doh!

Fair play to her,Yes it is a high salary but if her job involves cutting costs and saving money then it will be money well spent---and lets be honest,we'd all like to be on that kind of salary and wouldn't moan about it if it was us or someone in our family on it.

A case of rearranging the deck chairs? So the total cost of running the office of the Chief Executive is now I estimate to be over £300,000 - the two salaries plus their necessary? expenses. Are we getting value foor money? I don't think so. WCC already has too many senior executives on grossly inflated salaries - the justification for which always hinged on the arguments that you, 1. had to pay high to "attact" the best and 2. if you compared what senior executives were paid in private industry. Both arguments are without merit. Most appointments into WCC come from either within WCC or from another local authority - very few, if any from the private sector. And to compare the work and responsibilities of the CEO of WCC with that of a CEO of a private sector company with a similar turnover and workforce is laughable!

katiekins wrote:
so they cut the car parking FEES to pay for HER wages.Thought there would be catch.You dont get something for nothing............

With logic like that, I bet you're one of the council's senior managers ;-)

She is actually going to be on £90,000 plus and its jobs for the friends again,
This post was not even advertised and most of the council staff were not made aware that this post was even being offered as there are far more qualified people in the WCC who can do the job.

Just because you pay someone a big salary does not mean you will get what you are paying for and that applies to the Private sector aswell as the Public.

spider666 wrote:
Fair play to her,Yes it is a high salary but if her job involves cutting costs and saving money then it will be money well spent---and lets be honest,we'd all like to be on that kind of salary and wouldn't moan about it if it was us or someone in our family on it.

Why do we need an assistant to the chief executive to do this role? - surely we pay Trich Haines and the rest of her executive team to manage these issues. So I disagee - it is money NOT well spent!

Just sack her, and Ms Haines, and anyone involved in the decision to appoint them.

Top 'management' in local government does no bear the degree of risk, competence and responsibility required in equivalent jobs elsewhere.

If these people get it wrong, as they so often do, they don't get sacked, their business doesn't go under. They just blame the government or the elected officials.

There is pervasive childish, child-like, aversion in local government management to a/ do a decent day's hard work and b/ accept responsibility.

katiekins wrote:
so they cut the car parking FEES to pay for HER wages.Thought there would be catch.You dont get something for nothing............

You have got your councils mixed up this report is about the County Council the car parking is the City Council. But your logic is still wrong cutting prices to fund wages I don't think that works.

Wonder how much money is being spent on severance packages for those being made redundant.

Just one point.

It seems no Worcester News headline seems complete without the words FURY/OUTRAGE/RAGE/TR
AGEDY/SCHOCK/DISMAY.


It makes stories which might be serious look a bit ridiculous.

Do Worcester News journalists actually talk that way? If so, life at home must be HELL/AGONY.

People don't seem to talk that way in general. Why do journalists feel the need to?

Hey guys ....gather round ...shushh listen.......what are we going to do about it .....labour leader getting angry ?? shh sh...so what is he going to do about it....nothing absolutely nothing...so lets move on....I think the story about the new Pashas at Lowerwick was more interesting...what barm pot knocked the first application back in the first place - thats where peoples money is being wasted look deeper....70 - 80k nothing compared to what is being wasted elsewhere what the answer...as they say in Wrexham...."eye dunno"
Looking forward to a posh chicken and chips from Canada Way

More Tea Vicar wrote:
Just one point. It seems no Worcester News headline seems complete without the words FURY/OUTRAGE/RAGE/TR AGEDY/SCHOCK/DISMAY. It makes stories which might be serious look a bit ridiculous. Do Worcester News journalists actually talk that way? If so, life at home must be HELL/AGONY. People don't seem to talk that way in general. Why do journalists feel the need to?

I think they learn it at The Sun/Daily Mail college of attention grabbing newspaper headline writing...

This is unbelievable! Why do they need an Assistant Chief Executive when they've managed this long witout one! Seems like this just gives Mrs Haines even more time to do.......precisely nothing!

What a slap in the face for those who are awaiting their fate working in County Hall!

And on a serious note surely the logic is there for all to see; THE REAL NEWS HERE IS THAT - One person is taking on more responsibility with a new job title on the SAME wage. Whilst 2 directors earning well over 100k a year are being cut of the wage bill. No brainer. Costs cut = GOOD NEWS

Please take a look at
http://www.worcester
shire.gov.uk/cms/pdf
/Pay%20Policy%20Stat
ement%20WCC%20300112
%20Vn%208%20(3)updat
e.pdf

Callum Mitchell wrote:
And on a serious note surely the logic is there for all to see; THE REAL NEWS HERE IS THAT - One person is taking on more responsibility with a new job title on the SAME wage. Whilst 2 directors earning well over 100k a year are being cut of the wage bill. No brainer. Costs cut = GOOD NEWS

Now was the original post temporary? In which case this is not a saving in the long term................
.

Callum Mitchell wrote:
And on a serious note surely the logic is there for all to see; THE REAL NEWS HERE IS THAT - One person is taking on more responsibility with a new job title on the SAME wage. Whilst 2 directors earning well over 100k a year are being cut of the wage bill. No brainer. Costs cut = GOOD NEWS

So a few people who have been drawing obscenely high salaries are being tipped off the gravy train. That's great, but why were they on those salaries in the first place?

All Haines is doing is making a big meal out of making a few easy steps to provide a partial solution to a mess which she is responsible for, and part of.

And I would love to see the severance packages for the people you mention, by the way.

I'm sure this position has been costed and signed off with the councils bosses. The salary like everything today is what these positions pay like for like in industry. This information is disclosed like many industries and for me is not news how much does the editor of Worcester news get how much does the local bin men earn who cares has long as they do a good job.

I do like her personal profile, achievements include:

'transforming the council into one that listens to it's residents and delivers accordingly.'

So it didn't before and does now?

worcswolf wrote:
I'm sure this position has been costed and signed off with the councils bosses. The salary like everything today is what these positions pay like for like in industry. This information is disclosed like many industries and for me is not news how much does the editor of Worcester news get how much does the local bin men earn who cares has long as they do a good job.

There are huge difficulties in doing a like-for-like comparison. What do you compare the cushy, low responsibility local government 'boss' to?

In effect, you are showing who should be sacked; the bosses who make these decisions, to the advantage of a close and closed circle of friends.

The comparison with the editor of the Worcester News is irrelevant. That person is doing a different job, facing competition and a rapidly-changing market place. More to the point, we can choose to buy the newspaper, or not.

We have no choice about paying the wages of public sector managers.

Why are we in the position in the public sector where we have to cut jobs and services so deeply. Worcester, including the managers and the frontline staff are being thrown on the jobs scrapheap because ..... bankers bankrupted hundreds of thousands of people with mortgages...George Osborne is in denial..... bankers were then bailed out by the taxpayers of Worcester including the staff of the council and then like RBS today they ask for more time and more money to bail them out. Isn't this the line Labour should be taking? The top two bankers in the UK last year earned more than ALL the chief executives in ALL the UK councils - around 400 people last year. Get a grip.

I attend several meetings a month In a voluntary capacity, and the look of doom and dismay of those who are worrying about their job futures is quite concerning.
I can honestly say that although I am opposed to the slash and burn tactics of the Tory administration, the members of staff that are having to carry out these policies are privately as dismayed as those under attack.
What we will wind up with is a very depleted staff coping with providing less and less services, and the council acting purely as a procurement agency. The work now being carried out by these civil servants will have been transferred on contracts into the private sector. So Cameron's forecast of more jobs in the private sector (or Privatisation) will happen but at the cost of the jobs of civil servants, and without the experience.
So yet again the millionaires on the right will have it, and the working class on the left will not And just look at the record of some of the Tory pals who have been awarded huge contracts and made almighty errors and given disgraceful services in return. Plus who will be they answer to not the public as now?.

This is totally abhorrent and insensitive and just shows the contempt that council workers continue to show towards the tax payer, especially during these tough economic times where much harder working private sector workers are suffering so much.

The fact that Worcestershire County Council deliver average services for most of the time with little value for money rubs salt in to the wounds. Yet the council is quite happy to pay extornionate wages to all staff, from the top down. Clare Mitchell should hang her head in shame at accepting this post and salary while others should be sheepish for making this decision.

Council staff are so out of touch with reality. It is about time once and for all that their position, salaries and other conditions were re-evaluated and brought in to line with the private sector. Apart from lower wages, the private sector is harder working, more effcicient and less-error strewn. Furthermore, it is time all council staff had their salaries published for the tax payer's benefit, while staff need to become accountable and transparent.

I for one will show my displeasure to the next council officer I am in contact with, everyone else should do the same so that they are aware of our feelings. It may focus their minds.

This just makes me furious.

The salary is fine provided a) the position is essential (it clearly isn't), b) the individuals output demands it (I doubt it, and there is no evidence to support it based on overall council performance) and c) that we, the Tax payer can afford it (we clearly can't).

This council is squanfdering YOUR tax payments. I'd love for them to be audited as if they were a private sector firm.... but turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

SICKENING.

When will staff Worcestershire County Council wake up, smell the roses and enter the real world?! This is yet another kick in the teeth for the county's tax payers and for those who work for the private sector, the real hard workers who have very low salaries, are struggling to make ends meet and go from one day to another wondering if their job is safe. But don't worry yourselves too much about everyone else Clare Mitchell, and anyone else who works for Worcestershire County Council, because you know you'll have no problems paying your mortgages, paying bills, affording to run your flash expensive cars and generally making ends meet.

Just keep sticking two fingers up to everyone else, council staff, while you continue with your cushy jobs in your ivory towers and do very little in return for your huge salaries, perks and bonuses. As long as you're all happy, that is all that matters.

So the private sector will take up the slack and replace the lower performing public sector. I don't think so and neither does Cameron - great great grandson of the founder of the Bank of India, Australia and China, now Standard Chartered. If the private sector is such a shining example of high performance how come the financial sector, the pride of the private sector got us into all this mess in the first place. The public sector can't do it all on its own and neither can the private sector so let's not kid ourselves that it is one or the other. The problem is we have been fooled into thinking we should fight eachother rather than identify the problem and solve it.

But this is typical of the County Council. At a time when families struggle to pay for fuel, utilities and food the council then demands tax from them and gives it to its managers so that they can live in luxury whilst hard working families struggle to make ends meet. It is also indecent that to maintain managers pay and jobs, they cut back on the poorest council staff. This isn't the only recent example of overpaid managers in the council, there are a lot of line managers/managers at the HIve, way out of proportion to the front line staff, all paid an inflated salary out of proportion to what they do and the dire financial state of the council.

Countyconcilemployee wrote:
But this is typical of the County Council. At a time when families struggle to pay for fuel, utilities and food the council then demands tax from them and gives it to its managers so that they can live in luxury whilst hard working families struggle to make ends meet. It is also indecent that to maintain managers pay and jobs, they cut back on the poorest council staff. This isn't the only recent example of overpaid managers in the council, there are a lot of line managers/managers at the HIve, way out of proportion to the front line staff, all paid an inflated salary out of proportion to what they do and the dire financial state of the council.

Judging by your username, you're a council employee and perhaps we finally have some from the inside who is confirming what the tax payer suspects about council staff, and in particular the managers and their pay. It's time people made a stand against local government workers, otherwise they will continue to reward themselves with higher and higher salaries and benefits, and all at the tax payer's expense.

I see Clare Mitchell has a massive smile on her face and why shouldn't she have, after all she will be earning £75,800. And I suspect many other staff at Worcestershire county council are smiling too with their large salaries, generous pensions, perks, upto 54 days annual leave etc etc. And in exchange for these benefits you don't have to do too much work, surf the internet, read newspapers and have lengthy pub lunches. County Hall definitely is the place to be working at!

fightforfort wrote:
So the private sector will take up the slack and replace the lower performing public sector. I don't think so and neither does Cameron - great great grandson of the founder of the Bank of India, Australia and China, now Standard Chartered. If the private sector is such a shining example of high performance how come the financial sector, the pride of the private sector got us into all this mess in the first place. The public sector can't do it all on its own and neither can the private sector so let's not kid ourselves that it is one or the other. The problem is we have been fooled into thinking we should fight eachother rather than identify the problem and solve it.

But don't you think the main and biggest problem, is accountability.

Business is accountable to its shareholders, our beloved MPs and Councillors are accountable to the voters.

But who on earth are these people accountable to? It depresses me that we have to pay our council tax and yet we appear not to have a say in what they do with it.

I joined the Worcester Viewpoint Panel but what good does that do; just provides more frustration.

I feel that until we are able to hold these people accountable for their actions, they will continue to get away with it at our expense.

Oh dear as usual I see the old green eyes are out yet again ref salary details commented on by people who have no idea of the responsibilities or accountabilites of holding a senior management position.

This salary is only comparative with any private sector similar role which I presume as a taxpayer you would like to attract similar talent at the correct market rate to work on your behalf or would you prefer to pay for a useless muppet at 10k a year?

Change the record, get some evidence and let someone prove themselves before judgement eh?

For the record I am a taxpayer, do not work for the council but I am a realist...

Jabbadad - what contracts have been awarded to favoured persons and what level have service has been affected ?
I am not a of any particular political bias - as a tax payer I find your comments very interesting - dont need to mention names - maybe a clue to the service.

Eve of Destruction wrote:

katiekins wrote:
so they cut the car parking FEES to pay for HER wages.Thought there would be catch.You dont get something for nothing............

With logic like that, I bet you're one of the council's senior managers ;-)

SORRY got mixed up he he he.............

Just read the national newspapers who have been running such stories for months now.

Eve of Destruction wrote:

fightforfort wrote:
So the private sector will take up the slack and replace the lower performing public sector. I don't think so and neither does Cameron - great great grandson of the founder of the Bank of India, Australia and China, now Standard Chartered. If the private sector is such a shining example of high performance how come the financial sector, the pride of the private sector got us into all this mess in the first place. The public sector can't do it all on its own and neither can the private sector so let's not kid ourselves that it is one or the other. The problem is we have been fooled into thinking we should fight eachother rather than identify the problem and solve it.

But don't you think the main and biggest problem, is accountability.

Business is accountable to its shareholders, our beloved MPs and Councillors are accountable to the voters.

But who on earth are these people accountable to? It depresses me that we have to pay our council tax and yet we appear not to have a say in what they do with it.

I joined the Worcester Viewpoint Panel but what good does that do; just provides more frustration.

I feel that until we are able to hold these people accountable for their actions, they will continue to get away with it at our expense.

Eve of Destruction says the question is really about accountability. Well up to a point. The officers, especially the senior ones, these days have enough performance management regimes/value for money/external inspections to make your head spin. We vote in councillors and they hold the officers to account. I don't know about you but I would rather not sit around performance measuring a load of bureaucracy. The LIBOR louts were, eventually, caught out by the FSA - the external inspectors for the financial lot. They weren't caught out by the armchair shareholders. What we want are good decisions and good management carried out by good people. The two directors who lost their jobs were accountable and this new manager will also be scrutinisted until the beans being counted squeak. I just hope she will still want to do the job after all this abuse.

I am truly lost for words as this is yet another example of Worcestershire County Council being totally out of touch with the real world. Can they not see people outside of the council struggling to make ends meet because of low wages and job cuts, not to mention the need to cut council services because of the local goverment pension defecit and high salaries which has been gold plated for years. Yet, without a care in the world towards council tax payers this authority simply decides to pay Clare Mitchell a salary fo £75,800 for a questionable role (what the hell does the Chief Executive do then for over £170,000?), while everyone else in the private sector is suffering so badly which was the fault of some public sector workers like those who work for the council.

I sincerely hope that Clare reads these comments and perhaps realise she has made a a grave error of judgement and either declines the salary or resigns. If people in the private sector resign because of questionable decisions and salaries in the face of pubic anger, why not in the public sector too. And those who went along with this decision should look at themselves too, and in fact every single worker at County Hall should now revaluate their position and consider whether they think they are worth their high salaries and bonuses, especially in respsect of the standard of services they deliver which is often or not very poor, especially with some departments like highways.

Council tax payers need to make a stand against this continuous wave of contempt the council shows towards the public, not just in salaries, but also with standards of services and their attitudes to everyone else. As their is no mechanism in place to allow council workers to become directly accountable to the public, the only thing that can be done is for people to contact the Chief Executive direct, have a mass protest at County Hall or ensure such issues are raised at Parish Council meetings which councillors attend.

This post was not known to exsist, it wasnt advertised in or outside of WCC, it has been created, as for Mrs Haines, i was at a forum where she said does anyone want to ask a question? it can be about anything, my college asked one and Mrs Haines had no idea what was being talked about and changed the subject, it was disgusting as it was about the proposed vunerable elderly on benefits who will have to pay for such things as call alarms etc, just shows how out of touch she is.

DEMRICS wrote:

Countyconcilemployee wrote:
But this is typical of the County Council. At a time when families struggle to pay for fuel, utilities and food the council then demands tax from them and gives it to its managers so that they can live in luxury whilst hard working families struggle to make ends meet. It is also indecent that to maintain managers pay and jobs, they cut back on the poorest council staff. This isn't the only recent example of overpaid managers in the council, there are a lot of line managers/managers at the HIve, way out of proportion to the front line staff, all paid an inflated salary out of proportion to what they do and the dire financial state of the council.

Judging by your username, you're a council employee and perhaps we finally have some from the inside who is confirming what the tax payer suspects about council staff, and in particular the managers and their pay. It's time people made a stand against local government workers, otherwise they will continue to reward themselves with higher and higher salaries and benefits, and all at the tax payer's expense.

I am indeed and have been for some years. I disagree about your generalisation of "council staff". Many, mostly front liners, are hardworking, decent and treated like c--p by the council. What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. Instead the council fills its management positions with people only concerned with their salary levels, not the community or their workers. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are loosing hours or jobs, whereas line managers/managers continue to enjoy good pay levels and jobs. The council is developing this peculiar situation where the managers outnumber the workers. What annoys me and the tax payer should be aware of is that even in the best of times many of these line managers are not needed, many are incompetent and many are paid in excess of their ability, productivity and responsibility. The council does not care for the community, does not care for its low paid workers, but it does care a lot about line managers.

DEMRICS wrote:

Countyconcilemployee wrote:
But this is typical of the County Council. At a time when families struggle to pay for fuel, utilities and food the council then demands tax from them and gives it to its managers so that they can live in luxury whilst hard working families struggle to make ends meet. It is also indecent that to maintain managers pay and jobs, they cut back on the poorest council staff. This isn't the only recent example of overpaid managers in the council, there are a lot of line managers/managers at the HIve, way out of proportion to the front line staff, all paid an inflated salary out of proportion to what they do and the dire financial state of the council.

Judging by your username, you're a council employee and perhaps we finally have some from the inside who is confirming what the tax payer suspects about council staff, and in particular the managers and their pay. It's time people made a stand against local government workers, otherwise they will continue to reward themselves with higher and higher salaries and benefits, and all at the tax payer's expense.

I am indeed and have been for some years. I disagree about your generalisation of "council staff". Many, mostly front liners, are hardworking, decent and treated like c--p by the council. What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. Instead the council fills its management positions with people only concerned with their salary levels, not the community or their workers. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are loosing hours or jobs, whereas line managers/managers continue to enjoy good pay levels and jobs. The council is developing this peculiar situation where the managers outnumber the workers. What annoys me and the tax payer should be aware of is that even in the best of times many of these line managers are not needed, many are incompetent and many are paid in excess of their ability, productivity and responsibility. The council does not care for the community, does not care for its low paid workers, but it does care a lot about line managers.

Vox populi wrote:
Oh dear as usual I see the old green eyes are out yet again ref salary details commented on by people who have no idea of the responsibilities or accountabilites of holding a senior management position.

This salary is only comparative with any private sector similar role which I presume as a taxpayer you would like to attract similar talent at the correct market rate to work on your behalf or would you prefer to pay for a useless muppet at 10k a year?

Change the record, get some evidence and let someone prove themselves before judgement eh?

For the record I am a taxpayer, do not work for the council but I am a realist...

IWhat those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. Instead the council fills its management positions with people only concerned with their salary levels, not the community or their workers. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are loosing hours or jobs, whereas line managers/managers continue to enjoy good pay levels and jobs. The council is developing this peculiar situation where the managers outnumber the workers. What annoys me and the tax payer should be aware of is that even in the best of times many of these line managers are not needed, many are incompetent and many are paid in excess of their ability, productivity and responsibility. The council does not care for the community, does not care for its low paid workers, but it does care a lot about line managers.

Piccolo wrote:
Hang on a minute. On the face of it they're doing away with 3 senior staff to save around £300k, & increasing an existing person's responsibilities for an extra less than £10k. That's good isn't it!?

What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are loosing hours or jobs, whereas line managers/managers continue to enjoy good pay levels and jobs.

spider666 wrote:
Fair play to her,Yes it is a high salary but if her job involves cutting costs and saving money then it will be money well spent---and lets be honest,we'd all like to be on that kind of salary and wouldn't moan about it if it was us or someone in our family on it.

What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are loosing hours or jobs, whereas line managers/managers continue to enjoy good pay levels and jobs.

Callum Mitchell wrote:
And on a serious note surely the logic is there for all to see; THE REAL NEWS HERE IS THAT - One person is taking on more responsibility with a new job title on the SAME wage. Whilst 2 directors earning well over 100k a year are being cut of the wage bill. No brainer. Costs cut = GOOD NEWS

What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are loosing hours or jobs, whereas line managers/managers continue to enjoy good pay levels and jobs.

worcswolf wrote:
I'm sure this position has been costed and signed off with the councils bosses. The salary like everything today is what these positions pay like for like in industry. This information is disclosed like many industries and for me is not news how much does the editor of Worcester news get how much does the local bin men earn who cares has long as they do a good job.

Well as long as it has been costed and signed of that is ok. The Council should act to higher ethical code than the private sector and do the best for the community and its workers. What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. Instead the council fills its management positions with people only concerned with their salary levels, not the community or their workers. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are losing hours or jobs and the community its services.

Countyconcilemployee wrote:

Callum Mitchell wrote:
And on a serious note surely the logic is there for all to see; THE REAL NEWS HERE IS THAT - One person is taking on more responsibility with a new job title on the SAME wage. Whilst 2 directors earning well over 100k a year are being cut of the wage bill. No brainer. Costs cut = GOOD NEWS

What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are loosing hours or jobs, whereas line managers/managers continue to enjoy good pay levels and jobs.

"What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want." This to me suggests that people in the council, and those especially at management level and above, are clearly not as capable as those in the private sector if they are effectively cast offs and can't cut it in the private sector.

So what we have are council staff who are of a sub-standard ability, and this in a way explains why council services are very average. We don't have anyone of real ability or intelligence working at the council while thie merely reaffirms that workers in the private sector are far more competent, yet get paid less as a result (and not more as some may suggest). As one previous person has posted on this thread, all council employees should have their pay publicly disclosed.

Severnside wrote:
I am truly lost for words as this is yet another example of Worcestershire County Council being totally out of touch with the real world. Can they not see people outside of the council struggling to make ends meet because of low wages and job cuts, not to mention the need to cut council services because of the local goverment pension defecit and high salaries which has been gold plated for years. Yet, without a care in the world towards council tax payers this authority simply decides to pay Clare Mitchell a salary fo £75,800 for a questionable role (what the hell does the Chief Executive do then for over £170,000?), while everyone else in the private sector is suffering so badly which was the fault of some public sector workers like those who work for the council.

I sincerely hope that Clare reads these comments and perhaps realise she has made a a grave error of judgement and either declines the salary or resigns. If people in the private sector resign because of questionable decisions and salaries in the face of pubic anger, why not in the public sector too. And those who went along with this decision should look at themselves too, and in fact every single worker at County Hall should now revaluate their position and consider whether they think they are worth their high salaries and bonuses, especially in respsect of the standard of services they deliver which is often or not very poor, especially with some departments like highways.

Council tax payers need to make a stand against this continuous wave of contempt the council shows towards the public, not just in salaries, but also with standards of services and their attitudes to everyone else. As their is no mechanism in place to allow council workers to become directly accountable to the public, the only thing that can be done is for people to contact the Chief Executive direct, have a mass protest at County Hall or ensure such issues are raised at Parish Council meetings which councillors attend.

Perhaps people would be inclined to take your comments more seriously if you got your facts correct. No council employee receives a bonus, there have been no pay rises for three years and pay has effectively been reduced. All are accountable to the Members. It is not just the private sector that is bearing the brunt in these difficult times. With regards to the standard of council services, just how do you expect services to improve or even remain the same when the budget has to be reduced by £70 million? Like anywhere, there are people who work for the council who do the minimum, but the vast majority care deeply about this county and the work that they do. They are an easy target, and your comments are incorrect and unfair.

Perhaps people would be inclined to take your comments more seriously if you got your facts correct. No council employee receives a bonus, there have been no pay rises for three years and pay has effectively been reduced. All are accountable to the Members. It is not just the private sector that is bearing the brunt in these difficult times. With regards to the standard of council services, just how do you expect services to rackedoff ;;;says.improve or even remain the same when the budget has to be reduced by £70 million? Like anywhere, there are people who work for the council who do the minimum, but the vast majority care deeply about this county and the work that they do. They are an easy target, and your comments are incorrect and unfair.
Totally agree rackedoff, most the comments have NO IDEA what they are on about they have this misconception that the workers are on big money and perks, IF they can find them show me where they are, Its at the the managment? levels that it happens, ALSO i deal with services supplied by the PRIVATE sector and most of it is poor, untrained and expensive, it has to be chased as its unreliable, need i go on? the council workers have the experience and back up so get off the workers backs and get on the MPs back to get a grip of the overpaid and underworked managers.

Vox populi wrote:
Oh dear as usual I see the old green eyes are out yet again ref salary details commented on by people who have no idea of the responsibilities or accountabilites of holding a senior management position.

This salary is only comparative with any private sector similar role which I presume as a taxpayer you would like to attract similar talent at the correct market rate to work on your behalf or would you prefer to pay for a useless muppet at 10k a year?

Change the record, get some evidence and let someone prove themselves before judgement eh?

For the record I am a taxpayer, do not work for the council but I am a realist...

The problem is Vox populi we are paying high salaries for useless muppets, so yes, if we have to have them under the present regime, I would prefer to pay them 10K.

You say you are a realist? Come on, these people are not held to account by anyone. As long as they dot the i's and cross the t's they can do anything they like. This is not the same in business, you either succeed or fail while in the upper echelons of the council they do what they like, when they like. When mistakes are made, as long as the paperwork is done, the're in the clear and us tax payers are left to pick up the tab.

Eve of Destruction wrote:

Vox populi wrote:
Oh dear as usual I see the old green eyes are out yet again ref salary details commented on by people who have no idea of the responsibilities or accountabilites of holding a senior management position.

This salary is only comparative with any private sector similar role which I presume as a taxpayer you would like to attract similar talent at the correct market rate to work on your behalf or would you prefer to pay for a useless muppet at 10k a year?

Change the record, get some evidence and let someone prove themselves before judgement eh?

For the record I am a taxpayer, do not work for the council but I am a realist...

The problem is Vox populi we are paying high salaries for useless muppets, so yes, if we have to have them under the present regime, I would prefer to pay them 10K.

You say you are a realist? Come on, these people are not held to account by anyone. As long as they dot the i's and cross the t's they can do anything they like. This is not the same in business, you either succeed or fail while in the upper echelons of the council they do what they like, when they like. When mistakes are made, as long as the paperwork is done, the're in the clear and us tax payers are left to pick up the tab.

Summed up nicely Eve of Destruction. The ones who are even attempting to defend council workers either work for the council or are totally out of touch with reality and have clearly forgotten that it is council workers who have contributed to the financial crisis which has impacted so negatively on the private sector, resulting in loss of profits, wage cuts and job losses. Yet council workers continue to benefit from salaries that are much higher than those in the private sector but, as you say, they are useless muppets who deliver mostly rubbish services (bar, I believe teachers, who are the opposite).

As a previous blogger has alluded to, people who work for the council should do so to serve the community, to see it as a privilege to help people in a similar vein to voluntary and charitable causes, not as an opportunity to squander tax payer's money on their salaries, perks and pensions, instead of services. I agree that £10k should be a wage cap, and that should be performance related too.

As long as council staff remain unaccountable to the public, they will continue to remain unmonitored, earn high salaries (which I believe is an average of £25-30k at Worcestershire county council) and deliver average services. And there is nothing we can do about it.

I agree with a previous post that protests should now be held at the doors of County Hall, while this should go another step further by making our views felt with any individual council workers we come in to contact with, or anyone we know is a council worker. Even outside of work too.

Severnside wrote:

Countyconcilemployee wrote:

Callum Mitchell wrote:
And on a serious note surely the logic is there for all to see; THE REAL NEWS HERE IS THAT - One person is taking on more responsibility with a new job title on the SAME wage. Whilst 2 directors earning well over 100k a year are being cut of the wage bill. No brainer. Costs cut = GOOD NEWS

What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want. The council do not have the money to match the private sector in this respect, instead they should be attracting people with the notion of it being an honour to work for the community. The other thing to consider is that £60,000 would still provide Ms Mitchell with a luxurious lifestyle, but the £15,800 surplus could have been given to a primary school that is shedding teaching assistants to save money. All managers pay is at the expense of another council worker. At the moment this means that front line workers are loosing hours or jobs, whereas line managers/managers continue to enjoy good pay levels and jobs.

"What those defending this pay level need to realise is that these levels do not attract the best, they attract the people the private sector don't want." This to me suggests that people in the council, and those especially at management level and above, are clearly not as capable as those in the private sector if they are effectively cast offs and can't cut it in the private sector.

So what we have are council staff who are of a sub-standard ability, and this in a way explains why council services are very average. We don't have anyone of real ability or intelligence working at the council while thie merely reaffirms that workers in the private sector are far more competent, yet get paid less as a result (and not more as some may suggest). As one previous person has posted on this thread, all council employees should have their pay publicly disclosed.

The coment "This to me suggests that people in the council, and those especially at management level and above, are clearly not as capable as those in the private sector if they are effectively cast offs and can't cut it in the private sector" is almost correct. You will find more incompetent than competent managers, but most front liners, are hardworking, decent, treated like c--p by the council and don't do it for the pay because it is so appalling as so much of the budget is earmarked for managers pay. You are correct to question the ability of managers. I know council workers who have been appointed to managerial level, and get the enhanced pay, even though they have never managed anything before, have no training and no qualifications. The council altered the system so that positions were not advertised externaly and rather than seek the best person for the role, they appointed internal candidates who faced no competition at all. The HOPE is that they will develop the necessary skills, meanwhile they are paid for a job they are not ready to do yet. It is incredible that tax payers money is paying for unsuitable people to fill roles they cannot prove they are suited for and recieve very comfortable pay levels, whilst outside people have to build up experience and get qualifications. In the council, who you know goes a long way. I could tell you a few more things that would make your toes curl. All paid for with tax money, whilst tax payers struggle.

WilkoJ wrote:

Eve of Destruction wrote:

Vox populi wrote:
Oh dear as usual I see the old green eyes are out yet again ref salary details commented on by people who have no idea of the responsibilities or accountabilites of holding a senior management position.

This salary is only comparative with any private sector similar role which I presume as a taxpayer you would like to attract similar talent at the correct market rate to work on your behalf or would you prefer to pay for a useless muppet at 10k a year?

Change the record, get some evidence and let someone prove themselves before judgement eh?

For the record I am a taxpayer, do not work for the council but I am a realist...

The problem is Vox populi we are paying high salaries for useless muppets, so yes, if we have to have them under the present regime, I would prefer to pay them 10K.

You say you are a realist? Come on, these people are not held to account by anyone. As long as they dot the i's and cross the t's they can do anything they like. This is not the same in business, you either succeed or fail while in the upper echelons of the council they do what they like, when they like. When mistakes are made, as long as the paperwork is done, the're in the clear and us tax payers are left to pick up the tab.

Summed up nicely Eve of Destruction. The ones who are even attempting to defend council workers either work for the council or are totally out of touch with reality and have clearly forgotten that it is council workers who have contributed to the financial crisis which has impacted so negatively on the private sector, resulting in loss of profits, wage cuts and job losses. Yet council workers continue to benefit from salaries that are much higher than those in the private sector but, as you say, they are useless muppets who deliver mostly rubbish services (bar, I believe teachers, who are the opposite).

As a previous blogger has alluded to, people who work for the council should do so to serve the community, to see it as a privilege to help people in a similar vein to voluntary and charitable causes, not as an opportunity to squander tax payer's money on their salaries, perks and pensions, instead of services. I agree that £10k should be a wage cap, and that should be performance related too.

As long as council staff remain unaccountable to the public, they will continue to remain unmonitored, earn high salaries (which I believe is an average of £25-30k at Worcestershire county council) and deliver average services. And there is nothing we can do about it.

I agree with a previous post that protests should now be held at the doors of County Hall, while this should go another step further by making our views felt with any individual council workers we come in to contact with, or anyone we know is a council worker. Even outside of work too.

Emotional clap trap rhetoric.
So you want bin men, council receptionists, traffic wardens etc. on 10k a year?
How much do you earn and how do you warrant it?
Where do you get the idea that council workers got us into this financial mess?
Average wage in the UK is about £26k so why should the council not be averaging similar?
Why are you not advising the Council for free to help the community?

WilkoJ wrote:

Eve of Destruction wrote:

Vox populi wrote:
Oh dear as usual I see the old green eyes are out yet again ref salary details commented on by people who have no idea of the responsibilities or accountabilites of holding a senior management position.

This salary is only comparative with any private sector similar role which I presume as a taxpayer you would like to attract similar talent at the correct market rate to work on your behalf or would you prefer to pay for a useless muppet at 10k a year?

Change the record, get some evidence and let someone prove themselves before judgement eh?

For the record I am a taxpayer, do not work for the council but I am a realist...

The problem is Vox populi we are paying high salaries for useless muppets, so yes, if we have to have them under the present regime, I would prefer to pay them 10K.

You say you are a realist? Come on, these people are not held to account by anyone. As long as they dot the i's and cross the t's they can do anything they like. This is not the same in business, you either succeed or fail while in the upper echelons of the council they do what they like, when they like. When mistakes are made, as long as the paperwork is done, the're in the clear and us tax payers are left to pick up the tab.

Summed up nicely Eve of Destruction. The ones who are even attempting to defend council workers either work for the council or are totally out of touch with reality and have clearly forgotten that it is council workers who have contributed to the financial crisis which has impacted so negatively on the private sector, resulting in loss of profits, wage cuts and job losses. Yet council workers continue to benefit from salaries that are much higher than those in the private sector but, as you say, they are useless muppets who deliver mostly rubbish services (bar, I believe teachers, who are the opposite).

As a previous blogger has alluded to, people who work for the council should do so to serve the community, to see it as a privilege to help people in a similar vein to voluntary and charitable causes, not as an opportunity to squander tax payer's money on their salaries, perks and pensions, instead of services. I agree that £10k should be a wage cap, and that should be performance related too.

As long as council staff remain unaccountable to the public, they will continue to remain unmonitored, earn high salaries (which I believe is an average of £25-30k at Worcestershire county council) and deliver average services. And there is nothing we can do about it.

I agree with a previous post that protests should now be held at the doors of County Hall, while this should go another step further by making our views felt with any individual council workers we come in to contact with, or anyone we know is a council worker. Even outside of work too.

What a load of uninformed rubbish! To quote average pay is missing the point - the majority of WCC full-time employees earn between £12,000 and £17,000. And to say that they should be capped at £10,000 to "serve the community" is both insulting and demeaning. As for the comment that council staff "contributed" to the financial crisis just shows how out of touch you are - council staff have no more influence on the global economy than the rest of us! I object to the high salaries that the "Heads of Service and Directorate" are paid (see my previous posts) but the majority of staff earn what they are paid. I suggest you look on the WCC web-site and in the search box put "pay policy statement" to establish the facts before you make another post!

imustbeoldiwearacap speaks some truth. But I must point out that statistically (and yes it can be confirmed), the lower grades earn proportionately more working for WCC than they would in comparative employment elsewhere in the private sector. The Heads of Service and Directors on the other hand earn proportionately less. I am not a council employee, but have spent the majority of my working life in the private sector. To suggest the private sector operates in a manner that is superior to the public sector is frankly laughable. Having worked for some of the most high profile company's of their kind in their field, I can honestly say that their management was ineffective, irrational and inept. The private sector appears to have an inflated opinion of their talents and abilities. It's a pity we can't learn from each other's strengths and achievements and stop this mud slinging and attacks on people who are working with commitment and compassion for the good of our county.

Let's get one thing straight, the current economic woes were started by the intolerable behaviour of the financial institutions. Yet the government's spin has been so effective in somehow apportioning blame on to council workers to the point where everyone now believes the ill-informed propaganda which is resulting in everyone's anger being vented towards council workers. In fact they're now being blamed for almost everything, even the weather.

I know some staff at Worcestershire County Council who are being persecuted and abused by the public because they are simply council workers and seen as the cause for the Country's problems. Some of the attacks are beyond acceptable, and cross the line, but it seems that this is ok because they're council workers and serve the public, so should be subjected to abuse. Some of the people are even being derided by friends because they are council workers, and all because a division has been caused by a "them and us" culture manifested by the tax payer and the private sector.

As for wages, what is considered acceptable for council workers? It seems it's ok for a CEO of a private company to be paid hundreds of thousands of pounds, even millions, but when the CEO of the County Council, which employs over 10,000 people, earns about £180k, everyone is up in arms. Even lower down the hierachy, positions are generally paid less than those in the private sector,even with equivalent jobs, and I should know as I worked in the public sector and now work in the private sector. It seems that because council staff are serving the public at the tax payer's expense, they should be paid a pittance. I know people who have said that £10k is too much to pay a council worker.

As for work ethic, both sectors suffer from freeloaders, but it's more prevailent in the private sector which is no way near as lean or as conscientious, while the tiers of management at the County Council are far less than many envisage. Furthemore, errors can be made and afforded in the private sector because their sole purpose is to make money, so wastage can be accomodated. Council workers are aware they're delivering services using tax payer's money, but errors do occur which are not deliberate and frequent as everyone assumes, but when genuine mistakes happen, my god, all hell breaks loose amongst tax payers and the private sector who start calling for council heads. Mistakes shouldn't happen in the public sector, granted, but they do, but on far less occasions than they do in the private sector who are not under the microscope all the time.

And when was the last time you heard a good news story in WN about the council? Never. Not because good stuff doesn't happen. Far from it in fact, because all everyone wants to hear are the bad news stories about councils as it makes headlines and allows people to exercise criticim towards the council, especially as a result of the government's spin. The bad news stories are nothing compared to the good things that happen, but no-one wants to hear that because the council is seen as the anti-christ. A murderer would get more respect.

MulsanneChap wrote:
Let's get one thing straight, the current economic woes were started by the intolerable behaviour of the financial institutions. Yet the government's spin has been so effective in somehow apportioning blame on to council workers to the point where everyone now believes the ill-informed propaganda which is resulting in everyone's anger being vented towards council workers. In fact they're now being blamed for almost everything, even the weather.

I know some staff at Worcestershire County Council who are being persecuted and abused by the public because they are simply council workers and seen as the cause for the Country's problems. Some of the attacks are beyond acceptable, and cross the line, but it seems that this is ok because they're council workers and serve the public, so should be subjected to abuse. Some of the people are even being derided by friends because they are council workers, and all because a division has been caused by a "them and us" culture manifested by the tax payer and the private sector.

As for wages, what is considered acceptable for council workers? It seems it's ok for a CEO of a private company to be paid hundreds of thousands of pounds, even millions, but when the CEO of the County Council, which employs over 10,000 people, earns about £180k, everyone is up in arms. Even lower down the hierachy, positions are generally paid less than those in the private sector,even with equivalent jobs, and I should know as I worked in the public sector and now work in the private sector. It seems that because council staff are serving the public at the tax payer's expense, they should be paid a pittance. I know people who have said that £10k is too much to pay a council worker.

As for work ethic, both sectors suffer from freeloaders, but it's more prevailent in the private sector which is no way near as lean or as conscientious, while the tiers of management at the County Council are far less than many envisage. Furthemore, errors can be made and afforded in the private sector because their sole purpose is to make money, so wastage can be accomodated. Council workers are aware they're delivering services using tax payer's money, but errors do occur which are not deliberate and frequent as everyone assumes, but when genuine mistakes happen, my god, all hell breaks loose amongst tax payers and the private sector who start calling for council heads. Mistakes shouldn't happen in the public sector, granted, but they do, but on far less occasions than they do in the private sector who are not under the microscope all the time.

And when was the last time you heard a good news story in WN about the council? Never. Not because good stuff doesn't happen. Far from it in fact, because all everyone wants to hear are the bad news stories about councils as it makes headlines and allows people to exercise criticim towards the council, especially as a result of the government's spin. The bad news stories are nothing compared to the good things that happen, but no-one wants to hear that because the council is seen as the anti-christ. A murderer would get more respect.

I must say you've done an admirable job in trying to protect your former colleagues, but I'm afraid the only spin is from you in trying to laughably defend council workers and apportion blame for the financial crisis on to banks. While it is true they had some input, the majority of the issues have arisen from the excessive salaries and gold plated pensions of council workers, which the tax payer can no longer fund and bail out, but rather than take the hits like the private sector are doing, council staff are still rewarding themselves with large salaries. Sadly, the attitude of council staff is one of sheer contempt towards everyone else and something needs to be done about it and soon.

MulsanneChap wrote:
Let's get one thing straight, the current economic woes were started by the intolerable behaviour of the financial institutions. Yet the government's spin has been so effective in somehow apportioning blame on to council workers to the point where everyone now believes the ill-informed propaganda which is resulting in everyone's anger being vented towards council workers. In fact they're now being blamed for almost everything, even the weather.

I know some staff at Worcestershire County Council who are being persecuted and abused by the public because they are simply council workers and seen as the cause for the Country's problems. Some of the attacks are beyond acceptable, and cross the line, but it seems that this is ok because they're council workers and serve the public, so should be subjected to abuse. Some of the people are even being derided by friends because they are council workers, and all because a division has been caused by a "them and us" culture manifested by the tax payer and the private sector.

As for wages, what is considered acceptable for council workers? It seems it's ok for a CEO of a private company to be paid hundreds of thousands of pounds, even millions, but when the CEO of the County Council, which employs over 10,000 people, earns about £180k, everyone is up in arms. Even lower down the hierachy, positions are generally paid less than those in the private sector,even with equivalent jobs, and I should know as I worked in the public sector and now work in the private sector. It seems that because council staff are serving the public at the tax payer's expense, they should be paid a pittance. I know people who have said that £10k is too much to pay a council worker.

As for work ethic, both sectors suffer from freeloaders, but it's more prevailent in the private sector which is no way near as lean or as conscientious, while the tiers of management at the County Council are far less than many envisage. Furthemore, errors can be made and afforded in the private sector because their sole purpose is to make money, so wastage can be accomodated. Council workers are aware they're delivering services using tax payer's money, but errors do occur which are not deliberate and frequent as everyone assumes, but when genuine mistakes happen, my god, all hell breaks loose amongst tax payers and the private sector who start calling for council heads. Mistakes shouldn't happen in the public sector, granted, but they do, but on far less occasions than they do in the private sector who are not under the microscope all the time.

And when was the last time you heard a good news story in WN about the council? Never. Not because good stuff doesn't happen. Far from it in fact, because all everyone wants to hear are the bad news stories about councils as it makes headlines and allows people to exercise criticim towards the council, especially as a result of the government's spin. The bad news stories are nothing compared to the good things that happen, but no-one wants to hear that because the council is seen as the anti-christ. A murderer would get more respect.

What utter nonsense MulsanneChap. You will find it was council workers who were the root cause of the financial crisis in the UK and rather than attempt to fix things by being in it together with the private sector, they resist job cuts, salary cuts and lower pensions. Those in the private sector have been unable to resist, or even have the choice to resist. And yet we have someone like Clare Mitchell who has not one ounce of empathy to quite happily receive £75,800. It is abhorrent.

As for salaries, there should be a wage cap and £10,000 is not unreasonable for a certain level within the hierachy. The poster who said that this salary is demeaning and insulting should reconsider as it is the attitude of council workers towards everyone else that is insulting and demeaning. The sooner they change their ways, the better.

And the reason why their are few good news stories in the WN is because very little good emanates from the council, not because the WN chooses not to report it.

Love reading all the staunch communists claiming these salaries are too high.

This thread is all about money and Claire Mitchell has saved Worcester a huge amount. This level of talent is needed at WCC and you only attract talent with market rate salaries.

Ask yourself when did you last make or save your organisation 1000 times what you cost them in salary?

1Parent2 wrote:
Love reading all the staunch communists claiming these salaries are too high.

This thread is all about money and Claire Mitchell has saved Worcester a huge amount. This level of talent is needed at WCC and you only attract talent with market rate salaries.

Ask yourself when did you last make or save your organisation 1000 times what you cost them in salary?

Are you trying to claim this person has saved the local taxpayer almost £80 million?

Hilarious,

When did we become a way out west hick town? Do people really think £10k is a decent salary equitable with a level of work and personal risk an employee might take? Do you believe this because you feel that it is "your" money and you don't get the service "you" want?

While there are ungrateful complainers who would whinge if people were paid £1 just because their binmen didn't arrive at 10am on the dot nobody wants to work at the council… I certainly wouldn't…

How can those whinging expect all the "sweeping reforms" they require when anybody capable of performing these has no desire to work for a below par salary or put up with the attitude they are exposed to by taking a council job?

As for the "honour" of working for a council don't make me laugh… Where is the honour in feeding your family?

Get real this isn't the middle ages 26k is the average UK salary.

fightforfort wrote:
So the private sector will take up the slack and replace the lower performing public sector. I don't think so and neither does Cameron - great great grandson of the founder of the Bank of India, Australia and China, now Standard Chartered. If the private sector is such a shining example of high performance how come the financial sector, the pride of the private sector got us into all this mess in the first place. The public sector can't do it all on its own and neither can the private sector so let's not kid ourselves that it is one or the other. The problem is we have been fooled into thinking we should fight eachother rather than identify the problem and solve it.

I was wondering when someone would come up with the 'private sector got us into this mess' nonsense.

The people in the financial sector who caused the mess are a small part of one industry in the private sector. They have little in common with the branch staff in local branches, let alone someone running a newsagents', café, hair salon or factory.

And the 'guilty' ones were operating in collusion with the Labour government, which loved taking the taxes to pay for the bloated public sector and welfare bill, knighted the likes of Fred The Shred Goodwin, and failed to regulate the market.

There are great people in the public and the private sector, and a fair few parasites, too. City slickers have as little to do with the productive private sector as County Hall 'managers' have to do with firefighters or front-line soldiers.

The fat cats in the City and in City and County Halls are jointly responsible for the mess, and both should take the consequences.

When have we ever seen a civil servant become answerable for there actions at county level ?
When has the county council ever imported 'talent' from the private sector ?
We do not appear to have full accountability for our hard earned taxes.
What we do get is a gravy train for the unemployables ! The current round of cuts is finally exposing the wastage that has been going on for years . Example 1 mlud
the incredible pothole repair machine that blows molten tar and gravel into a pothole in seconds . Unfortunately the repair only last 2/3 days but the machines cost upto £200k each. Result we still have repair gangs and a load of useless machinery and a well trained operator.

dulon wrote:
When have we ever seen a civil servant become answerable for there actions at county level ?
When has the county council ever imported 'talent' from the private sector ?
We do not appear to have full accountability for our hard earned taxes.
What we do get is a gravy train for the unemployables ! The current round of cuts is finally exposing the wastage that has been going on for years . Example 1 mlud
the incredible pothole repair machine that blows molten tar and gravel into a pothole in seconds . Unfortunately the repair only last 2/3 days but the machines cost upto £200k each. Result we still have repair gangs and a load of useless machinery and a well trained operator.

Unless something changes, council workers will never become answerable and accountable to the public, the people they should be working to serve and who pay their massive salaries. Until then, they will continue to get away with things at our expense as long as the council gravy train remains on track. It needs to be derailed.

As for talent, they're all in the private sector doing a superior job than any council worker could ever imagine. Look at the some of the successes of some private companies in Worcestershire, like Worcester Bosch for example. They're where they are because of the competence and dedication of staff.

And as for pothole repairs. Are you surprised dulon? This is the highways department we're talking about, probably the most incompetent department at the council, and probably the county, which is staffed by unbelievably inept staff. I am sure a trained chimp could do a far better job.

DEMRICS wrote:

MulsanneChap wrote:
Let's get one thing straight, the current economic woes were started by the intolerable behaviour of the financial institutions. Yet the government's spin has been so effective in somehow apportioning blame on to council workers to the point where everyone now believes the ill-informed propaganda which is resulting in everyone's anger being vented towards council workers. In fact they're now being blamed for almost everything, even the weather.

I know some staff at Worcestershire County Council who are being persecuted and abused by the public because they are simply council workers and seen as the cause for the Country's problems. Some of the attacks are beyond acceptable, and cross the line, but it seems that this is ok because they're council workers and serve the public, so should be subjected to abuse. Some of the people are even being derided by friends because they are council workers, and all because a division has been caused by a "them and us" culture manifested by the tax payer and the private sector.

As for wages, what is considered acceptable for council workers? It seems it's ok for a CEO of a private company to be paid hundreds of thousands of pounds, even millions, but when the CEO of the County Council, which employs over 10,000 people, earns about £180k, everyone is up in arms. Even lower down the hierachy, positions are generally paid less than those in the private sector,even with equivalent jobs, and I should know as I worked in the public sector and now work in the private sector. It seems that because council staff are serving the public at the tax payer's expense, they should be paid a pittance. I know people who have said that £10k is too much to pay a council worker.

As for work ethic, both sectors suffer from freeloaders, but it's more prevailent in the private sector which is no way near as lean or as conscientious, while the tiers of management at the County Council are far less than many envisage. Furthemore, errors can be made and afforded in the private sector because their sole purpose is to make money, so wastage can be accomodated. Council workers are aware they're delivering services using tax payer's money, but errors do occur which are not deliberate and frequent as everyone assumes, but when genuine mistakes happen, my god, all hell breaks loose amongst tax payers and the private sector who start calling for council heads. Mistakes shouldn't happen in the public sector, granted, but they do, but on far less occasions than they do in the private sector who are not under the microscope all the time.

And when was the last time you heard a good news story in WN about the council? Never. Not because good stuff doesn't happen. Far from it in fact, because all everyone wants to hear are the bad news stories about councils as it makes headlines and allows people to exercise criticim towards the council, especially as a result of the government's spin. The bad news stories are nothing compared to the good things that happen, but no-one wants to hear that because the council is seen as the anti-christ. A murderer would get more respect.

What utter nonsense MulsanneChap. You will find it was council workers who were the root cause of the financial crisis in the UK and rather than attempt to fix things by being in it together with the private sector, they resist job cuts, salary cuts and lower pensions. Those in the private sector have been unable to resist, or even have the choice to resist. And yet we have someone like Clare Mitchell who has not one ounce of empathy to quite happily receive £75,800. It is abhorrent.

As for salaries, there should be a wage cap and £10,000 is not unreasonable for a certain level within the hierachy. The poster who said that this salary is demeaning and insulting should reconsider as it is the attitude of council workers towards everyone else that is insulting and demeaning. The sooner they change their ways, the better.

And the reason why their are few good news stories in the WN is because very little good emanates from the council, not because the WN chooses not to report it.

Again, another garbage post. Council workers the "root cause" of the financial crisis - what planet did you just land from? And yet another advocating a £10,000 wage cap! All those supporting this should donate their excess of salary over £10,000 to St Richards Hospice!

Tee hee bound to get quality employees on £10k a year when they can earn more stopping at home drinking Stella on benefits...

Judging by the majority of the comments posted on this story, it is clear that it doesn't matter what the facts and reality are, too many simply refuse to listen to reason because they already have a mindset about council workers. So those who are trying to inform critics of the truth etc, you're probably wasting your time because too many people view council workers as lazy, overpaid and useless and there is nothing you can say or do that will change those stereotypical views. And the angst against council workers will, I'm afraid, only escalate and I fear for the welfare and personal safety of workers. I am aware that staff have been verbally and physically attacked and it will only get worse.

MulsanneChap wrote:
Judging by the majority of the comments posted on this story, it is clear that it doesn't matter what the facts and reality are, too many simply refuse to listen to reason because they already have a mindset about council workers. So those who are trying to inform critics of the truth etc, you're probably wasting your time because too many people view council workers as lazy, overpaid and useless and there is nothing you can say or do that will change those stereotypical views. And the angst against council workers will, I'm afraid, only escalate and I fear for the welfare and personal safety of workers. I am aware that staff have been verbally and physically attacked and it will only get worse.

Absolutely correct. It's just ill informed, bigoted bullying.

MulsanneChap wrote:
Judging by the majority of the comments posted on this story, it is clear that it doesn't matter what the facts and reality are, too many simply refuse to listen to reason because they already have a mindset about council workers. So those who are trying to inform critics of the truth etc, you're probably wasting your time because too many people view council workers as lazy, overpaid and useless and there is nothing you can say or do that will change those stereotypical views. And the angst against council workers will, I'm afraid, only escalate and I fear for the welfare and personal safety of workers. I am aware that staff have been verbally and physically attacked and it will only get worse.

Please do not insult the intelligence of those that critcise council staff, because they do so for reasons, and those reasons are based on facts and experience. If council staff were competent and were able to deliver even satisfactory services, and all for wages the tax payer found acceptable, then may be the criticisms would stop. However, until that day happens, people will continue to criticise Worcestershire county council and for good reason too.

WilkoJ wrote:

MulsanneChap wrote:
Judging by the majority of the comments posted on this story, it is clear that it doesn't matter what the facts and reality are, too many simply refuse to listen to reason because they already have a mindset about council workers. So those who are trying to inform critics of the truth etc, you're probably wasting your time because too many people view council workers as lazy, overpaid and useless and there is nothing you can say or do that will change those stereotypical views. And the angst against council workers will, I'm afraid, only escalate and I fear for the welfare and personal safety of workers. I am aware that staff have been verbally and physically attacked and it will only get worse.

Please do not insult the intelligence of those that critcise council staff, because they do so for reasons, and those reasons are based on facts and experience. If council staff were competent and were able to deliver even satisfactory services, and all for wages the tax payer found acceptable, then may be the criticisms would stop. However, until that day happens, people will continue to criticise Worcestershire county council and for good reason too.

Again, more generalisations without actually stating these facts and experiences! I agree with MulsanneChap - the mindset of antipathey against council workers is alive and well and inhabits these discussions.

MulsanneChap wrote:
Judging by the majority of the comments posted on this story, it is clear that it doesn't matter what the facts and reality are, too many simply refuse to listen to reason because they already have a mindset about council workers. So those who are trying to inform critics of the truth etc, you're probably wasting your time because too many people view council workers as lazy, overpaid and useless and there is nothing you can say or do that will change those stereotypical views. And the angst against council workers will, I'm afraid, only escalate and I fear for the welfare and personal safety of workers. I am aware that staff have been verbally and physically attacked and it will only get worse.

Well I for one MulsanneChap would like to see a total revamp of local government operations whereby council staff become directly accountable to the public, their salaries are severely capped and benefits reviewed, working hours increased and changed to encompass weekends like the private sector, leave dramatically slashed from up to 54 days a year, the public allowed to become involved in decision making and operations of services and staff perfomance scrutinised periodically with any shortfall resulting in public accountability, discipline or even dismissal. And all deadwood should be removed, but I fear that would then leave the council with only a handful of staff.

I suspect that my views may be shared by many tax payers of Worcestershire MulsanneChap, so your defence of council workers will win little support with the majority of residents vehemently opposed to the current way in which local government is run, which constitutes their current anger towards council staff, and quite rightly so.

DEMRICS wrote:

MulsanneChap wrote:
Judging by the majority of the comments posted on this story, it is clear that it doesn't matter what the facts and reality are, too many simply refuse to listen to reason because they already have a mindset about council workers. So those who are trying to inform critics of the truth etc, you're probably wasting your time because too many people view council workers as lazy, overpaid and useless and there is nothing you can say or do that will change those stereotypical views. And the angst against council workers will, I'm afraid, only escalate and I fear for the welfare and personal safety of workers. I am aware that staff have been verbally and physically attacked and it will only get worse.

Well I for one MulsanneChap would like to see a total revamp of local government operations whereby council staff become directly accountable to the public, their salaries are severely capped and benefits reviewed, working hours increased and changed to encompass weekends like the private sector, leave dramatically slashed from up to 54 days a year, the public allowed to become involved in decision making and operations of services and staff perfomance scrutinised periodically with any shortfall resulting in public accountability, discipline or even dismissal. And all deadwood should be removed, but I fear that would then leave the council with only a handful of staff.

I suspect that my views may be shared by many tax payers of Worcestershire MulsanneChap, so your defence of council workers will win little support with the majority of residents vehemently opposed to the current way in which local government is run, which constitutes their current anger towards council staff, and quite rightly so.

Well DEMRICS, there is a solution - it's called local democracy. You and your fellow-travellers on these pages, get together and get yourselves voted onto the council. Institute the above policies and then see how your fellow taxpayers of Worcester then support you! As an aside - I didn't know council services ceased at the weekends - must do if no-one works at weekends as you say. Strange - I can go to the liibrary, council care homes stay open, street cleaners are seen etc etc.

We need more cut backs, the clear facts are that the councils are frustrating cutbacks by cutting essential services and keeping their own 'feather bedded' high paid, high pensioned positions. We need to cut back more severely so that they have no alternative but to make these non-jobs, and rip-off executive positions redundant , and then gradually increase funding again to only to positions that have a direct role or interface in the provision of public services.
Any redundancy paid out should be at the statutory minimum and if needed the county should enter voluntary liquidation in order void anything to the contrary in employment contacts.

I for one would put up with reduced or non services for 6 months or so if meant we could get rid of 50% of county hall employees, cut the overpaid wages bill, and then re-employ people focused at providing a public service.

It is clear DarrenM that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about just like 99.5% of the people who have commented so far. Exactly which 'non jobs' are you talking about? To coin an earlier reference to Muppets, look in the mirror.

DarrenM wrote:
We need more cut backs, the clear facts are that the councils are frustrating cutbacks by cutting essential services and keeping their own 'feather bedded' high paid, high pensioned positions. We need to cut back more severely so that they have no alternative but to make these non-jobs, and rip-off executive positions redundant , and then gradually increase funding again to only to positions that have a direct role or interface in the provision of public services.
Any redundancy paid out should be at the statutory minimum and if needed the county should enter voluntary liquidation in order void anything to the contrary in employment contacts.

I for one would put up with reduced or non services for 6 months or so if meant we could get rid of 50% of county hall employees, cut the overpaid wages bill, and then re-employ people focused at providing a public service.

Summarised very well DarrenM. We need to ensure there are more sweeping changes at County Hall. Wages need to be cutted drastically, pensions slashed and other perks anulled and I still profess that a wage cap is a necessity. And if the current staff are ungrateful and think, for example, that £10k is not good enough, then let them leave or sack them. There'll be plenty more people who'll be grateful for a job and a salary and they may well do a far superior job than the current idiotic incumbents as well have that focus, desire and honour in providing efficient and value for money services. Which is currently non existent.

Just what perks do you think the staff at County Hall are getting? Can you not see that your comments are ill informed and ludicrous? How any of you can possibly expect to be taken seriously when it is blatantly obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about beggars belief. For those who work at County Hall and are committed and hard working and deliver the services that YOU rely on, your comments will wound and hurt. Why can you not see that you are lashing out at the wrong people, or is it that you are so blinkered you just do not care.

Severnside, with comments like that you have to be a troll.

Quote Severnside "Wages need to be cutted drastically, pensions slashed and other perks anulled and I still profess that a wage cap is a necessity."

Dear Severnside,

Despite your obvious desire to change the way our Council is run with spelling and grammar like that I regret to inform you that you have not qualified for any of the £10k jobs you have suggested.

Yours faithfully

Claire Mitchell

Worcester County Council.

rackedoff wrote:
It is clear DarrenM that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about just like 99.5% of the people who have commented so far. Exactly which 'non jobs' are you talking about? To coin an earlier reference to Muppets, look in the mirror.

99.5% of the people - Clearly you must be in the 0.5% - which part of the council do you work for out of interest? Are you the Diversity Officer in charge of accessibility in access portals for left handed short sighted people by any chance?

I don't work for the council, and I never have. I am however a balanced, fair and rational person who appreciates that there a lot of people who work for the council who care deeply about what they do and the services they provide. I also know that you cannot tar everyone with the same brush, which appears to be your modus operandi, and the last resort of those lacking in intelligence.

She was obviously very successful in her previous role...

"Her old position of head of change has been deleted"

She must have completed all of the changes, so they deleted her - which does smack a bit of Cybermen... "DELETE! DELETE! DELETE!