Jump to content

Top of the League


boris1066
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/Documents/Finance/Statement_of_Accounts_2010-2011.doc (section 35)

 

Disappointing that the media (e.g. Granada News) want to report the erroneous figures even when they've been told they're erroneous. 6 officers in Warrington had salaries over £100,000 last year. Add in employer's pension contributions and another 7 are. Somewhat short of the 34 cited by the Tax Payers Alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/Documents/Finance/Statement_of_Accounts_2010-2011.doc (section 35)

 

Disappointing that the media (e.g. Granada News) want to report the erroneous figures even when they've been told they're erroneous. 6 officers in Warrington had salaries over £100,000 last year. Add in employer's pension contributions and another 7 are. Somewhat short of the 34 cited by the Tax Payers Alliance.

 

Six too many! One down, five to go! None of them is worth half the amount they are being paid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WBC has been outed by the Tax Payers Alliance as having the highest number of officials earning over £100,000 a year !!

Seems an awful lot of dinero is bein spent on te wrong things ???

 

You have to ask yourself the question, would you accept such a salary or would you turn it down for the sake of a principle, now then!, is that such a hard question to answer and would you have to go away and think about it. :unsure:

:wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/Documents/Finance/Statement_of_Accounts_2010-2011.doc (section 35)

 

Disappointing that the media (e.g. Granada News) want to report the erroneous figures even when they've been told they're erroneous. 6 officers in Warrington had salaries over £100,000 last year. Add in employer's pension contributions and another 7 are. Somewhat short of the 34 cited by the Tax Payers Alliance.

 

The TPA probably used your old database in which case it's upto you guys to make sure it's current and available for your pay masters, the general public,to view.

It's notable that some officers expenses actually exceeded their base salary. Its also apparent that seemingly hardly any of the officers can manage without an assistant !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/Documents/Finance/Statement_of_Accounts_2010-2011.doc (section 35)

 

Disappointing that the media (e.g. Granada News) want to report the erroneous figures even when they've been told they're erroneous. 6 officers in Warrington had salaries over £100,000 last year. Add in employer's pension contributions and another 7 are. Somewhat short of the 34 cited by the Tax Payers Alliance.

 

I've had a look at the document you posted a link to and I count 19 employees in the "other employees" table receiving over £100,000 in 2010/11 - of whom 6 were agency staff, up from 4 the previous year.

 

And then there's the 13 current fat cats with their noses in the 6 figure trough.

 

I make that 32 different people who - according to it's own accounts - WBC paid in excess of £100,000 each in last year. Add in the pension contributions which have been excluded from the "other employees" table and a few others would pass the £100K threshold, so the TPA figure of 34 looks pretty good to me. That's over 4 million pounds per year of council tax payers money paid to fewer people than you can fit on a bus!

 

AND, then there's 8 "former" staff listed who got over the £100K each when they got their golden parachutes in the previous year. Best part of another million quid gone there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/Documents/Finance/Statement_of_Accounts_2010-2011.doc (section 35)

 

Disappointing that the media (e.g. Granada News) want to report the erroneous figures even when they've been told they're erroneous. 6 officers in Warrington had salaries over £100,000 last year. Add in employer's pension contributions and another 7 are. Somewhat short of the 34 cited by the Tax Payers Alliance.

 

Another revelation from the TPA is that WBC pension fund has an £88,000,000 black hole in it !!

Whats your spin on that one Steve ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If no-one earned more than £40K then we'd ALL have to be paying a 40% tax rate on every penny of it to supply enough revenue!

 

High earners in the private sector contribute lots to the public purse in tax (and, generally, get sacked if they under-achieve), high earners in the public sector do nothing but drain the public purse (and then just move on to another local authority with a golden parachute when their inadequacies are about to be found out).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another revelation from the TPA is that WBC pension fund has an £88,000,000 black hole in it !!

Whats your spin on that one Steve ??

Well, it's not a "revelation" as it's in the Council accounts. The deficit has gone down because investments have done better and should drop further because of the change from RPI to CPI. (I suppose the bulk of these pensions will be for staff who haven't had large salaries, so whether it's fair to cut their pension entitlement is another matter.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's not a "revelation" as it's in the Council accounts. The deficit has gone down because investments have done better and should drop further because of the change from RPI to CPI. (I suppose the bulk of these pensions will be for staff who haven't had large salaries, so whether it's fair to cut their pension entitlement is another matter.)

 

So the goal posts have been moved to improve the view and even after this sleight of hand the OECD say that there is still a huge £bn 54 black hole in state employees pension funds.

It still means that for every £5 in council tax we pay, £1 goes into your pension pot. Perhaps if these funds are brought in to line with the private sector, employment in the public sector won't be so attractive and would produce a reduction of staff without the expense of redundancy cost to the tax payer. I guess that might seem a bit radical but I am a Daily Mail reader !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Maybe if you didn't pay extortionate salaries to the chief executive and the rest of the top bods, things would get better faster.....

 

Not just WBC, apparantly Halton have 13 over the £140k salary and next year ALL council employees have been told that they will have to work 5 days for nothing, obviously to ensure that the 13 still get their 140k. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disgraceful...... aren't they a Labour controlled council too???

 

Amazes me that these hypocrites can claim to be for the working man when taking salaries that their average constituents and voters would have to work 10 years to earn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like council trying to save loads of money with the news that Broomhead is returning for six months on a pro-rata salary of just £120,000 :blink:

 

The public sector normally go through all sorts of procedures when they recruit - yet it seems that when it comes to the top-paid positions it is just a case of who you know.

 

 

1) Was this post advertised?

 

2) How does this appointment conform to council recuitment procedures - including any involving equality of employment opportunity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...