Bury my pay!

[observer]

Seems some workers have taken a 25% pay cut at Bury Council, in order for the Council to comply with Gov and EC directives on equal pay - that's another fine mess you've got us into Gordon!

[Steve the Original]

Mugsd i wouldnt of accepted that...

 

 

or are they being payed so much that they can afford to lose 25% of there pay??

 

Steve

[Paul Kennedy]

A couple of articles, which hopefully will give readers a fuller picture of the situation:

 

http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/3562911.Council_is_first_to_implement_equal_pay_changes/

 

http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/3576565.Council_workers_facing_massive_wage_cuts/

[Bazj]

Absolutely bloody amazing. I was never a great fan of public sector workers in a lot of ways because I thought they got too much in the way of conssesions and benefits and a nice pension; paid for by yours truly when they retired.

 

It appears that in Burys case I was wrong. How the hell can anyone justify taking up to 46% of someones salary away after spending the last decade telling them they can only have 1 and 2% rises? And of course; those at the top of the pay structure are immune from the exercise.(probably because they would all be on ?10,000.00 a year afterwards!)

 

Surely this cannot be legal (by which I mean surely they can't just take a low paid selection to work with rather than ALL of the workers; including those on the big money too)? I wonder when the strikes will start over in Bury then??

 

........and speaking of pensions, if someone was supposedly being paid 45% too much, then surely their pensions would also be cut by a comparable amout when they retired? What a catastrophe!!! Wonder when Warrington Council will try this one on!!??

[observer]

As I implied in my initial post: the villains of the peace are the (I'm all right Jack) politicians in Westminister and Brussels, who spew out this equal rights dogma in the form of legislation, WITHOUT any reference to it's practical implimentation at the coal face AND without resourcing Local Authorities adequately to impliment it rationally. 1) Presumably these workers had contracts of employment with nationally agreed rates of pay? Now unless they've got an incompetant Union that sold them out; an arbitary pay cut constitutes a breach of contract, giving them a legal as well as an industrial case - so they should be on strike now. 2) Any fair and rational implimentation of this dogma would have meant, that the pay scales would have been equalised UP - thus no losers. However, this will cost a great deal more, and as the instigators, Gov should have supplied the funding to resolve the matter in that way. Incidentally, this comes at a time when public opinion is changing to the opinion that "a woman's place is in the home"; bonding with family etc and developing the respect of their kids (NB, 1 in 3 kids now have NO respect for their parents!) - a job btw, that they should be paid for. Yet another example of what happens when we get ladettes in Parliament!

[Dizzy]

I'm all for equality in pay and all that as I've never understood why a man should get paid more than a woman for doing the same job etc...

 

BUT... what Bury Council are proposing is appauling. Surely they can?t expect to get away with it. Yes some people will get an increase and some will stay the same which, although annoying to the later, is fair (I suppose) but to CUT other staff members pay is totally unfair.

 

Any cut in pay for anyone, particularly with the current economy and day to day living expenses and mortgage rates rising all the time, is nothing more than a huge slap in the face for those affected by it.

 

WHY are they only hitting those with already relatively low salaries and yet leaving the higher earners alone . One woman on ?17k is getting a ?5k reduction. That?s one huge % and ?333 a month less than what she gets now a month.

 

I know what I would be doing if it happened to me and I would expect most of us would do the same??It involves 2 fingers and a new CV

[kateoflymm]

Absolutely bloody amazing. I was never a great fan of public sector workers in a lot of ways because I thought they got too much in the way of conssesions and benefits and a nice pension; paid for by yours truly when they retired.

 

 

 

I'm a retired Civil Servant. I have a very small C S pension - paid for by me, not you. I paid for this pension for over 20 years but the public perception is still that Civil Servants get their pensions "for free". My own brother assumed that I would retire on "half pay" and was astounded when I told him that only those who have worked in the C S for 40 years get that much. That was on the "final salary" scheme of course - they've scrapped that so I was lucky to be the age I am.

 

As for concessions and benefits, we did have flexi-time working and the Leave isn't bad (6 weeks after 5 years, though it was 6 weeks after 15 years until very recently). Can't think of any others.

[Bazj]

Absolutely bloody amazing. I was never a great fan of public sector workers in a lot of ways because I thought they got too much in the way of conssesions and benefits and a nice pension; paid for by yours truly when they retired.

 

 

 

I'm a retired Civil Servant. I have a very small C S pension - paid for by me, not you. I paid for this pension for over 20 years but the public perception is still that Civil Servants get their pensions "for free". My own brother assumed that I would retire on "half pay" and was astounded when I told him that only those who have worked in the C S for 40 years get that much. That was on the "final salary" scheme of course - they've scrapped that so I was lucky to be the age I am.

 

As for concessions and benefits, we did have flexi-time working and the Leave isn't bad (6 weeks after 5 years, though it was 6 weeks after 15 years until very recently). Can't think of any others.

 

Katie,

 

as a pensioner drawing a civil service pension, it is now paid for by me and other taxpayers. Your NI contributions went to pay the pensions of those who were retired while you were working.... that is the way it is. If you contributed personally; well that would have just topped it up a little for your retirement. Most private sector workers did not and still do not have the luxury of a pension where the employer ( in your case; the council, government, public) pay the majority of the contributions for you

 

The ONLY pension you pay for your self is a private pension (not a public sector contributory scheme) A private pension is usually the norm for most private sector workers. Paying a small percentage of your wages into the pension adds to it; it isn't the only contribution made.

 

As for the holidays and flexy time; yes it is a nice perk if you can get it. Again, most private sector workers do not enjoy such luxuries and as for 6 weeks (I am guessing paid too) leave, well that is just a dream!

[kateoflymm]

State Pension yes, I agree with you, paid for by NIC. Occupational pension - dependant on your own superannuation contributions. Top up by employer used to be fairly general until the 90s.

 

Yes, the Leave was generous in the C S, that's exactly why I said it was. Flexi-time was a good perk but you still worked the hours. Myself, in the last 5 years after I reached age 60, I worked 21 hours a week (over 3 days) and generally worked 7.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. with a half hour lunch. By then I wasn't directly involved with the public so I didn't need to keep "office hours" to be available. Convenient, but I wasn't "gaining" anything.

[observer]

Errm, I think the (Bury) Council workers arn't exactly rolling in money, are they?

[Paul Kennedy]

"Staff whose salary will go down under the new pay model will receive levels of protection, from one to three years depending on the level of their financial loss."

[observer]

Errm, well that should make it OK then; "sorry sir, but we've got to cut your legs off! The good news is: we're going to do it in stages!" Just for interest Paul, which Party runs Bury Council these days?

[Paul Kennedy]

Conservatives with a majority of 1.

 

Must admit I don't fully understand the situation in Bury, and what has gone on in the past to create the current problem, nor do I know the scale of the problem.

[Paul Kennedy]

Errm, well that should make it OK then; "sorry sir, but we've got to cut your legs off! The good news is: we're going to do it in stages!"

 

No, not at all, I was merely showing that the reality was somewhat different to the headlines, and that changes would not happen overnight as the headlines would have us believe.

[Dizzy]

But the reality is Paul that some employees WILL see substantial reductions in pay.. regardelss of wether it happens over night or in stages it's exactly the same no matter how you try to butter it up

 

Perhaps who ever has thought up this plan of action is hoping that people will actually leave so they can employ newbies on the much lower rates

[Gary]

Surely a council - whoever it is, should be run like a business.

If a business can't afford to continue at the same rates of pay it has two choices to remain in business, make staff redudant, or reduce over heads.

People have the right to choose where they work.

[Peter T]

But the reality is Paul that some employees WILL see substantial reductions in pay.. regardelss of wether it happens over night or in stages it's exactly the same no matter how you try to butter it up

 

Perhaps who ever has thought up this plan of action is hoping that people will actually leave so they can employ newbies on the much lower rates

 

Reductions over a three year period, or no pay increase for 3 years is preferable to having an instant full amount reduction, is it not?

 

And if it was a business, what is the alternative?

[Dizzy]

Surely a council - whoever it is, should be run like a business.

If a business can't afford to continue at the same rates of pay it has two choices to remain in business, make staff redudant, or reduce over heads.

People have the right to choose where they work.

 

Not seen many councils going out of business lately Gary have you and I suspect we never will

 

I agree with what you say but you can't really compare a local council organisation with normal businesses... more's the pitty

[observer]

No way a private buisiness could pull a stunt like this (assuming we've still got workers and Unions with some bottle); they'd probably have to go bankrupt and pay redundancies. Meanwhile, Local Government isn't allowed to go bankrupt; what should happen is: the Government should put it's money where it's half-baked legislation is, and fund the equalisation UP - sorted!

[Geoffrey Settle]

What I've been used to is that following a job re-evaluation exercise the people whose jobs have been deemed to be worth less have had their exisiting pay frozen. They have only started to receive an increase when their job's pay scale has caught up and rises above their frozen pay.

 

What's happening in Bury does appear to be going against the norm.

 

Is there a similar exercise going on currently in Warrington? There were certainly a lot of disgruntled council workers earlier in the year who I believe were having their jobs re-evaluated.

[wahl]

perhaps they should stand for paliament

 

Thirteen government members including Harriet Harman will get an inflation-busting pay rise next year.

 

They are among 26 London MPs whose Commons pay will increase by up to 9.4 per cent from 1 April under a deal voted through before the summer recess.

 

perhaps we should all stand for parliament

[KeithR]

Seems like the same council have now ordered pensioners whose garden fences have been covered in graffiti by vandals to clear the mess up themselves or face a ?1000 fine and a court appearance.

 

Is this a sign of things to come when the Tories regain power?

[observer]

It's called "small Government" - "sort yourselves out" - it must be a Tory Council then!

[Dizzy]

Seems like the same council have now ordered pensioners whose garden fences have been covered in graffiti by vandals to clear the mess up themselves or face a ?1000 fine and a court appearance.

 

Is this a sign of things to come when the Tories regain power?

 

Now I'm stuck with this one...

 

Presumably the fences in question are privately owned and belong to the pensioners so therefore they are not the councils responsibility.

 

BUT on the other hand I totally disagree with the fines and court appearances for the owners.... but perhaps the council are just trying to spur them on to clean it up.

 

BUT.... once cleaned then the vandals might return and do it again....

 

A better solution may be for the council and police to catch the mindless vandals and put deterants in place such as CCTV etc etc etc (if it is a recurring problem) so that the pensioners only have to paint over it once

[observer]

They can't even use CCTV to catch the mindless yobs who keep trashing our bus stops. Interesting that the Council in question said: that if anything racist or offensive had been written, they (the Council) would have removed the grafitti - so there's the answer for these pensioners - get the spray can out!