Living Wage/Councillor Allowances

[grim reaper]

Marky, maybe I didn't put my point across clearly.
I certainly wasn't 'knocking' this site, or most of the people on it.
Far from it. It is a fantastic site and medium for people's views. 

I was making the point in relation to the 84% of people that didn't vote in the Manor. I am sure if more of those 84% were aware of this site and of the issues it highlights, they too would be fired up and would want to go and vote out the undesirables infecting the town.

That's why I thought something like the mobile 'billboard' vehicle to advertise this site.

This site needs to be read by more residents of Hartlepool.   

[steveL]

I despair of Hartlepool Mail. Surely a simple question of whether this move will trigger a rise in the basic allowance should have been asked. They don't seem to recognise a story when one stares them in the face.

[DRiddle]

It's just another example of a total lack of joined up thinking by the people who make these decisions. As was mentioned earlier by Steve, it's very likely for most people this rise will be swallowed up by pushing them through a tax threshold that triggers additional NI and Income tax payments.

Or removes their right to claiming other benefits.

Most people see this as £150,000 being spent to push through a rise to all councillors which is actually worth about 60 odd pence per day for each of them (less the usual deductions).

I'm fully supportive of increasing wages for the low paid, but there are other ways this could be done without the need to throw £150,000 at it, a significant proportion of which will go straight to the government.

For example, big organisations that actually know what they're doing can, and do, some or all of the following:

(1) free or subsidised car parking (I know some big organisations that charge their staff just £4 a MONTH for parking, not just the senior staff, ALL staff).
(2) subsidised lunches (a lot of big organisations pay the 20% VAT for the staff, keeping the cost of lunch down for the employees).
(3) Free life insurance (typically worth about £8-10 a month).
(4) Free bus passes for workers. (Comfortably worth £200 pa +, and usually a very good deal can be negotiated with the bus company).
(5) a workers dental plan, again negotiated with a local dentist.
(6) A subsidised crèche or nursery for children. (can be worth £1000's a year).

There are also a million ways you can incentivise and motivate your staff without the need to actually give them an extra QUID an hours. For example:

(1) TOIL time (if they work a load of extra hours as and when required, give them some time off to compensate, be flexible).
(2) Regular MEANIGFUL praise and reward systems. (e.g a 'Friday off' for someone within each department deemed to have worked WAY above and beyond their remit).

Oh and most importantly of all.... employ managers who actually manage and have emotional intelligence.

An extra quid an hours is, in real terms, probably worth about £80 quid a month for some staff, £20 a week.
Implemented correctly there's a way of ensuring staff benefit WWAAYY in excess of that in real terms.

But then I guess doing it as described above, rather than a straight wage rise wouldn't trigger the rise for councillors.
 

[craig finton]

I'm intrigued by the Mail story on this as it is headlined 'Councillors back plans to boost pay of low paid Hartlepool Council workers' and then goes on to quote Mr Stubbs reassuring us that people won't be worse off as a result.

I notice too that at the same meeting as this was discussed, councillors were also having to talk about how to find £4m+ in savings for next year; not the best time then to be sticking another £155,000 on your wage bill, especially when you're not even sure if the intended target group of people will actually be any better off.

I suspect Steve is right. The 'intended target group' is actually councillors themselves.

[St Paul]

A bit ironic, don't you think and more than a little hypocritical. We're given all the usual reasons why increasing the wages of the lowest is a good thing, mostly by the town's two leading citizens who were more than content to oversee an organisation which refused to even meet the requirements of minimum wage legislation. Now that they have been found out, neither has done anything to put matters right and in fact both have tried to run away from their responsibilities. 

[CC082]

Has anyone also noticed that with this "Living wage" HBC expects all of it's new contractors and Providers to agree to a clause which requires them to match as closely as possible the Living wage....Hence the cost of Services/Contracts will undoubtedly increase....Thus spending more of Council Tax payer's money that doesn't exist.....

How does this help towards saving £4 million? Especially when Contracters and Providers are being asked to reduce their costs(normally through wage bill) yet provide the same or higher standard of service?

Just saying....

[CC082]

Also,  I am all for people being paid reasonably for the job they undertake, however, when the lower paid workers have their hourly rate increased to Living wage I cannot imagine those Council workers who were already above this Living wage line will be overly happy about not receiving parity thus in essence receiving a pay cut.....What will happen then??

Can anyone hear a strike looming??

[steveL]

This is all about timing.

When Labour campaigned to get rid of the elected Mayoral system they claimed that it would save £1m and they gave a list of things they could do with the money. Needless to say, increasing councillor allowances wasn't one of them.

The report of the remuneration panel recommended an increase in the basic allowance but, had it been implemented, then it would have looked bad politically because it would have been one of the first decisions made under the new governance arrangements.

Christopher Akers-Belcher duly got himself in The Mail telling everyone that it would be 'immoral' to accept such an increase at a time when council workers pay increases were themselves being restricted, though this didn't stop him accepting a 300% increase in his own allowance as well as increases for the Chairs of the various committees.

Labour wanted to spin it and the spin was that they were refusing to accept an increase in the basic allowance even though it had been recommended.

Privately, the sheep within the labour ranks were less than happy to be made the sacrificial lambs n all of this so a slight shift in position was worked out. Rather than allowing any money saved by turning down an increase in basic allowance to go into general council funds it would, instead, be put to one side in a separate fund intended to pay for the introduction of a 'living wage'.

Public statements were modified to say that a rise in the basic allowance would only happen as and when council worker pay increased.

Labour suddenly then got all enthusiastic about introducing a 'living wage' knowing full well that this would be the pathway to see an increase in their own allowances.

This too could be spun with talk about the low-paid, poverty, deprivation etc though Stubbs seems to have gotten a little carried away by throwing in morale, absenteeism, peace in our time, and God knows what else....

It's now 4 months since the change in governance and I guess now is seen as a safe enough time to increase councillor allowances. Akers-Belchers own allowance, as well as that of Special Responsibility Allowances, are calculated on a percentage basis so any increase in the basic allowance will see a corresponding increase in those extra allowances too.

In a word . . . .KERCHING!

[Hartlepudlion]

Yes Stevel couldn't agree more.

You also stated that the new governance is only four months old. So why are we funding a parade to celebrate a year in office for our dear leader's consort? Or are they now able to decree that a year is now only four months long! Perhaps we will soon become independent from the rest of the UK and have our own calendar.

[Lord Elpus]

Following on from SteveL one must remember the Comrades will expect the increase to be back dated to April 2013.

[St Paul]

Which means that they never did freeze their allowance, they just put it to one side for a bit. They just don't care any more. The public apathy, aka Owton Manor, guarantees them their place no matter what they say or do.

[The Great Dictator]

To even think about it demonstrates weak leadership.

[pensionater]

If the rise comes about it will be interesting to see who turns it down,from ALL parties.