'York needs better jobs' says council leader James Alexander

Call for city to create ‘better jobs’

Call for city to create ‘better jobs’

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Business editor

YORK has the highest level of jobs growth in low-skilled and low-paid occupations in the country.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics, compiled by Comparative Economies, reveal that out of all the jobs created in York over the past four years, 51 per cent of them have been elementary occupations.

The figures is the highest percentage across the UK, beating Burnley in second place with 47 per cent, and Birmingham in third with 38 per cent.

Elementary occupations are defined as those which require the knowledge and experience necessary to perform mostly routine tasks, often involving the use of simple hand-held tools and, in some cases, requiring a degree of physical effort.

Occupations include roles in agriculture, construction, process plant, administration and services, cleaning, security, sales and storage.

Of the remaining jobs created, 18.4 per cent were professional occupations, and 17 per cent were classed as middle occupations.

Councillor James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said: “These figures confirm what I have been saying for some time. While I am pleased the council working in partnership with businesses sees York reduce unemployment faster than the regional or national average, it is clear a lot of this growth is in lower wage jobs.

“York’s focus needs to increasingly be on helping existing business who pay their staff well to grow and attracting similar businesses to York.

“York’s job seeker’s allowance rate is now one of the lowest in the country and stands at 1.1 per cent, but far too many residents are having to rely on part-time work and zero hour contracts.

“York doesn’t just need more jobs, York needs better jobs.”

 

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:04am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Wow, the Press are firing out the Labour articles today!
Wow, the Press are firing out the Labour articles today! York2000
  • Score: 6

10:07am Thu 21 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

York2000 wrote:
Wow, the Press are firing out the Labour articles today!
Funny, with a bit of luck (not much by the way) we will be firing Labour next year. Which is probably why the urgency to get better jobs has become the mantra of the soon to be unemployed.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Wow, the Press are firing out the Labour articles today![/p][/quote]Funny, with a bit of luck (not much by the way) we will be firing Labour next year. Which is probably why the urgency to get better jobs has become the mantra of the soon to be unemployed. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -48

10:13am Thu 21 Aug 14

Can't all be wrong says...

The insatiable drive towards the tourism dependant business model is flawed. By definition hotel, restaurant and the hospitality industry have some of the lowest paid workers in the country. Could this have a bearing on the fact that York now pays out £43 mill a year in housing benefits?
The city needs an agressive dynamic thinker who could work with industry and the university to attract better paid industries.
Guess that's the problem right there!
The insatiable drive towards the tourism dependant business model is flawed. By definition hotel, restaurant and the hospitality industry have some of the lowest paid workers in the country. Could this have a bearing on the fact that York now pays out £43 mill a year in housing benefits? The city needs an agressive dynamic thinker who could work with industry and the university to attract better paid industries. Guess that's the problem right there! Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 25

10:30am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Can't all be wrong - 'The city needs an agressive dynamic thinker who could work with industry and the university to attract better paid industries.'

Who would that be?
Can't all be wrong - 'The city needs an agressive dynamic thinker who could work with industry and the university to attract better paid industries.' Who would that be? York2000
  • Score: 6

10:40am Thu 21 Aug 14

Can't all be wrong says...

York2000 wrote:
Can't all be wrong - 'The city needs an agressive dynamic thinker who could work with industry and the university to attract better paid industries.'

Who would that be?
That's the problem right there.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Can't all be wrong - 'The city needs an agressive dynamic thinker who could work with industry and the university to attract better paid industries.' Who would that be?[/p][/quote]That's the problem right there. Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 21

10:40am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Can't all be wrong - Agree. We don't have an inspiring list of candidates.
Can't all be wrong - Agree. We don't have an inspiring list of candidates. York2000
  • Score: 13

10:51am Thu 21 Aug 14

gmsgop says...

Dear James

I wonder how long your staff have been telling you this, and you have just ignored until finally the pressure from citizens sharing the true facts means you have to respond with your usual platitudes.

I know it must be tough but why not do some logical thinking, and even better do it inside the democratic system. Why not work with those staff left who are not jaunting across the world to look at this properly - oh that assumes you are not on one of your many self serving trips - any coming up by any chance?

Your main theme apparently is #jobsand growth - so why do you outsource all the economic strategy work to am very small group of business people who meet in effect secrecy - yes that's the WOW local economic partnership - yes the one where citizens are not allowed to speak, but can 'write to the chair' .

Your core document is a flimsy 'economic strategy 2011-1015 which after multiple complaints from me was first submitted (as an annex) to the council cabinet late LAST autumn 2013. So a handful of public sector people & a couple of business people oversight the main priority of this council. What could go wrong?

Why not get a proper review of the strategy by the economic scrutiny committee? Well that's easy, Labour chair is far to busy with small topics rather than seeing the big picture -oh,that chair would be Anna Semlyan - couldn't make it up could you.

Gwen Swinburn

PS at least you haven't proposed a 'summit' independently chaired of course! Or did I miss that.
Dear James I wonder how long your staff have been telling you this, and you have just ignored until finally the pressure from citizens sharing the true facts means you have to respond with your usual platitudes. I know it must be tough but why not do some logical thinking, and even better do it inside the democratic system. Why not work with those staff left who are not jaunting across the world to look at this properly - oh that assumes you are not on one of your many self serving trips - any coming up by any chance? Your main theme apparently is #jobsand growth - so why do you outsource all the economic strategy work to am very small group of business people who meet in effect secrecy - yes that's the WOW local economic partnership - yes the one where citizens are not allowed to speak, but can 'write to the chair' . Your core document is a flimsy 'economic strategy 2011-1015 which after multiple complaints from me was first submitted (as an annex) to the council cabinet late LAST autumn 2013. So a handful of public sector people & a couple of business people oversight the main priority of this council. What could go wrong? Why not get a proper review of the strategy by the economic scrutiny committee? Well that's easy, Labour chair is far to busy with small topics rather than seeing the big picture -oh,that chair would be Anna Semlyan - couldn't make it up could you. Gwen Swinburn PS at least you haven't proposed a 'summit' independently chaired of course! Or did I miss that. gmsgop
  • Score: -60

10:53am Thu 21 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

York2000 wrote:
Can't all be wrong - Agree. We don't have an inspiring list of candidates.
Quite right, but what we do have is a list of who it shouldn't be.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Can't all be wrong - Agree. We don't have an inspiring list of candidates.[/p][/quote]Quite right, but what we do have is a list of who it shouldn't be. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -33

10:58am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Fanny Free House - Indeed. There's plenty of hatred towards JA and co, but something that's definitely been missing is anyone trumpeting an alternative. What is the alternative? Depressing question. The only time anyone offered their suggestion was when someone ages ago said 'vote UKIP'. But I am not sure if that counts.
Fanny Free House - Indeed. There's plenty of hatred towards JA and co, but something that's definitely been missing is anyone trumpeting an alternative. What is the alternative? Depressing question. The only time anyone offered their suggestion was when someone ages ago said 'vote UKIP'. But I am not sure if that counts. York2000
  • Score: 13

10:58am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Fanny Free House - Indeed. There's plenty of hatred towards JA and co, but something that's definitely been missing is anyone trumpeting an alternative. What is the alternative? Depressing question. The only time anyone offered their suggestion was when someone ages ago said 'vote UKIP'. But I am not sure if that counts.
Fanny Free House - Indeed. There's plenty of hatred towards JA and co, but something that's definitely been missing is anyone trumpeting an alternative. What is the alternative? Depressing question. The only time anyone offered their suggestion was when someone ages ago said 'vote UKIP'. But I am not sure if that counts. York2000
  • Score: 8

10:58am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Fanny Free House - Indeed. There's plenty of hatred towards JA and co, but something that's definitely been missing is anyone trumpeting an alternative. What is the alternative? Depressing question. The only time anyone offered their suggestion was when someone ages ago said 'vote UKIP'. But I am not sure if that counts.
Fanny Free House - Indeed. There's plenty of hatred towards JA and co, but something that's definitely been missing is anyone trumpeting an alternative. What is the alternative? Depressing question. The only time anyone offered their suggestion was when someone ages ago said 'vote UKIP'. But I am not sure if that counts. York2000
  • Score: 9

11:02am Thu 21 Aug 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

"Elementary occupations are defined as those which require the knowledge and experience necessary to perform mostly routine tasks, often involving the use of simple hand-held tools and, in some cases, requiring a degree of physical effort."

Lot of words there. They used to call them manual jobs when I was a lad.....
"Elementary occupations are defined as those which require the knowledge and experience necessary to perform mostly routine tasks, often involving the use of simple hand-held tools and, in some cases, requiring a degree of physical effort." Lot of words there. They used to call them manual jobs when I was a lad..... Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: 39

11:27am Thu 21 Aug 14

julia brica says...

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
"Elementary occupations are defined as those which require the knowledge and experience necessary to perform mostly routine tasks, often involving the use of simple hand-held tools and, in some cases, requiring a degree of physical effort."

Lot of words there. They used to call them manual jobs when I was a lad.....
You got that right bbwolf even our window cleaner describes himself as a vision technician.
[quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: "Elementary occupations are defined as those which require the knowledge and experience necessary to perform mostly routine tasks, often involving the use of simple hand-held tools and, in some cases, requiring a degree of physical effort." Lot of words there. They used to call them manual jobs when I was a lad.....[/p][/quote]You got that right bbwolf even our window cleaner describes himself as a vision technician. julia brica
  • Score: -65

11:28am Thu 21 Aug 14

julia brica says...

But Joking apart big bad wolf at least we have the services of
Gwen Swinburn who gets the points well and truly home
But Joking apart big bad wolf at least we have the services of Gwen Swinburn who gets the points well and truly home julia brica
  • Score: -43

11:39am Thu 21 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

York2000 wrote:
Fanny Free House - Indeed. There's plenty of hatred towards JA and co, but something that's definitely been missing is anyone trumpeting an alternative. What is the alternative? Depressing question. The only time anyone offered their suggestion was when someone ages ago said 'vote UKIP'. But I am not sure if that counts.
To answer your in triplicate contribution (your not in insurance are you...?).

It is not hatred of JA, it is the realisation of the fact that he's just not cutting the mustard, neither is his team. I think successful businesses that pay well are the least likely to need partnerships with the council and focus should be on those that don't pay well and how that situation could be improved whilst maintaining employment.

Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.

Consequently a small Ltd company paying it's staff minimum wage while the directors take payment in premiums and pay minimum tax are enjoying an exemplary standard of living while the employees are subsidised just to make ends meet.

Drive a Merc, live in a 5 bed detached house while my staff get by with subsidised housing at the expense of those that pay full tax contributions which probably includes the employees themselves.

We have a system that encourages people to have their cake and eat it.

Maybe if we had a process of means testing the businesses who pay minimum wage to employees that require subsidising we may really make a difference.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Fanny Free House - Indeed. There's plenty of hatred towards JA and co, but something that's definitely been missing is anyone trumpeting an alternative. What is the alternative? Depressing question. The only time anyone offered their suggestion was when someone ages ago said 'vote UKIP'. But I am not sure if that counts.[/p][/quote]To answer your in triplicate contribution (your not in insurance are you...?). It is not hatred of JA, it is the realisation of the fact that he's just not cutting the mustard, neither is his team. I think successful businesses that pay well are the least likely to need partnerships with the council and focus should be on those that don't pay well and how that situation could be improved whilst maintaining employment. Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is. Consequently a small Ltd company paying it's staff minimum wage while the directors take payment in premiums and pay minimum tax are enjoying an exemplary standard of living while the employees are subsidised just to make ends meet. Drive a Merc, live in a 5 bed detached house while my staff get by with subsidised housing at the expense of those that pay full tax contributions which probably includes the employees themselves. We have a system that encourages people to have their cake and eat it. Maybe if we had a process of means testing the businesses who pay minimum wage to employees that require subsidising we may really make a difference. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -32

11:43am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Fanny Free House - Sorry, I meant an alternative councillor/council leader (across all parties).

Excellent post. I think this nails Britain at the moment:

''Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.''
Fanny Free House - Sorry, I meant an alternative councillor/council leader (across all parties). Excellent post. I think this nails Britain at the moment: ''Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.'' York2000
  • Score: 28

12:04pm Thu 21 Aug 14

rking1977 says...

Well, there's a surprise - tourism-based economies equal low-paid jobs... especially when the type of tourists York is increasingly attracting want £2 alcopops, a doner kebab and kip four-to-a-room in a TravelLodge.

It's indicative of the trend across Britain though. More low-paid jobs simply means more people who rely on state support. In-work benefits and housing benefits are now among the UK's biggest welfare costs (far, far higher than unemployment benefits).

Britain has become a low-skilled, low-wage economy where the government uses taxpayers' money to subsidise huge businesses so they can pay staff an inadequate wage.

Time to get tough on scroungers, maybe starting with the biggest chains on every highstreet.
Well, there's a surprise - tourism-based economies equal low-paid jobs... especially when the type of tourists York is increasingly attracting want £2 alcopops, a doner kebab and kip four-to-a-room in a TravelLodge. It's indicative of the trend across Britain though. More low-paid jobs simply means more people who rely on state support. In-work benefits and housing benefits are now among the UK's biggest welfare costs (far, far higher than unemployment benefits). Britain has become a low-skilled, low-wage economy where the government uses taxpayers' money to subsidise huge businesses so they can pay staff an inadequate wage. Time to get tough on scroungers, maybe starting with the biggest chains on every highstreet. rking1977
  • Score: 31

12:36pm Thu 21 Aug 14

gmsgop says...

(Thanks Julia)!

Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have.

There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod.

If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny.

At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york
Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system.

gwen swinburn
(Thanks Julia)! Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have. There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod. If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny. At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system. gwen swinburn gmsgop
  • Score: -35

12:38pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

York2000 wrote:
Fanny Free House - Sorry, I meant an alternative councillor/council leader (across all parties).

Excellent post. I think this nails Britain at the moment:

''Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.''
I'm not convinced we have leaders, I guess figure heads would be my description.

As for the minimum wage it should be replaced with pay banding.

A company paying the lower band (current minimum wage) to it's employees should have it's profit and loss account investigated annually. After all their business is being subsidised indirectly by the tax payer.

A company paying mid band (living wage) should be scrutinised every 2 years.

Upper band (50p an hour above living wage) no impact.

We also need to realign our thinking on who we determine are scroungers, is it those who receive benefit or those who create the need for benefit for the sake of inflated profit.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Fanny Free House - Sorry, I meant an alternative councillor/council leader (across all parties). Excellent post. I think this nails Britain at the moment: ''Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.''[/p][/quote]I'm not convinced we have leaders, I guess figure heads would be my description. As for the minimum wage it should be replaced with pay banding. A company paying the lower band (current minimum wage) to it's employees should have it's profit and loss account investigated annually. After all their business is being subsidised indirectly by the tax payer. A company paying mid band (living wage) should be scrutinised every 2 years. Upper band (50p an hour above living wage) no impact. We also need to realign our thinking on who we determine are scroungers, is it those who receive benefit or those who create the need for benefit for the sake of inflated profit. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -29

12:44pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Thecynic says...

rking1977 wrote:
Well, there's a surprise - tourism-based economies equal low-paid jobs... especially when the type of tourists York is increasingly attracting want £2 alcopops, a doner kebab and kip four-to-a-room in a TravelLodge.

It's indicative of the trend across Britain though. More low-paid jobs simply means more people who rely on state support. In-work benefits and housing benefits are now among the UK's biggest welfare costs (far, far higher than unemployment benefits).

Britain has become a low-skilled, low-wage economy where the government uses taxpayers' money to subsidise huge businesses so they can pay staff an inadequate wage.

Time to get tough on scroungers, maybe starting with the biggest chains on every highstreet.
Absolutely spot on! It's totally crazy that the Government should give away more (much more) in benefits to in-work people rather than to those the system was designed for, namely those out of work!
It doesn't happen in most other Countries, so why here?
[quote][p][bold]rking1977[/bold] wrote: Well, there's a surprise - tourism-based economies equal low-paid jobs... especially when the type of tourists York is increasingly attracting want £2 alcopops, a doner kebab and kip four-to-a-room in a TravelLodge. It's indicative of the trend across Britain though. More low-paid jobs simply means more people who rely on state support. In-work benefits and housing benefits are now among the UK's biggest welfare costs (far, far higher than unemployment benefits). Britain has become a low-skilled, low-wage economy where the government uses taxpayers' money to subsidise huge businesses so they can pay staff an inadequate wage. Time to get tough on scroungers, maybe starting with the biggest chains on every highstreet.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on! It's totally crazy that the Government should give away more (much more) in benefits to in-work people rather than to those the system was designed for, namely those out of work! It doesn't happen in most other Countries, so why here? Thecynic
  • Score: 21

12:45pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Anna Gramme says...

Yet when proposals to bring high-end jobs to the city are made, what is the cry on these pages ? They won't be jobs for York people.
Yet when proposals to bring high-end jobs to the city are made, what is the cry on these pages ? They won't be jobs for York people. Anna Gramme
  • Score: 14

1:06pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Anna Gramme says...

gmsgop wrote:
(Thanks Julia)!

Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have.

There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod.

If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny.

At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york
Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system.

gwen swinburn
"...they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains." All very well but someone has to do these jobs; just take a look at what happens when a street isn't cleaned for a few days. The aim should be to make jobs like this part of a wider remit and to pay good wages for those who do the essential but unsung jobs. However, though it goes against the grain to say anything positive about CoYC, they do pay the Living Wage. Just blaming Labour isn't good enough and you know it. The systemic problems of local governance derive from years of neglect by central government of the importance of this sector. The result is the cynicism which we now have in relation to local government in England. Though one would think from reading the comments on topics like this that at the next local elections there would be a huge turnout. Notwithstanding that the next election coincides with a general election the turnout will still be pathetically low. The reason ? It makes little difference because local government is basically wholly constrained by Westminster and Whitehall and this results in fewer candidates of potentially national importance becoming councillors. When local government had real power it was the route to national prominence for political figures. Now the route is via public school and (too often) Oxford University. Machine politicians with no understanding of the mechanics of local government and thus little likelihood of redressing the situation.
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: (Thanks Julia)! Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have. There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod. If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny. At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system. gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]"...they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains." All very well but someone has to do these jobs; just take a look at what happens when a street isn't cleaned for a few days. The aim should be to make jobs like this part of a wider remit and to pay good wages for those who do the essential but unsung jobs. However, though it goes against the grain to say anything positive about CoYC, they do pay the Living Wage. Just blaming Labour isn't good enough and you know it. The systemic problems of local governance derive from years of neglect by central government of the importance of this sector. The result is the cynicism which we now have in relation to local government in England. Though one would think from reading the comments on topics like this that at the next local elections there would be a huge turnout. Notwithstanding that the next election coincides with a general election the turnout will still be pathetically low. The reason ? It makes little difference because local government is basically wholly constrained by Westminster and Whitehall and this results in fewer candidates of potentially national importance becoming councillors. When local government had real power it was the route to national prominence for political figures. Now the route is via public school and (too often) Oxford University. Machine politicians with no understanding of the mechanics of local government and thus little likelihood of redressing the situation. Anna Gramme
  • Score: 14

1:23pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘Councillor James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said: “These figures confirm what I have been saying for some time. While I am pleased the council working in partnership with businesses sees York reduce unemployment faster than the regional or national average, it is clear a lot of this growth is in lower wage jobs.’

Don’t worry James you will be back in a lower wage job in May!
‘Councillor James Alexander, leader of City of York Council, said: “These figures confirm what I have been saying for some time. While I am pleased the council working in partnership with businesses sees York reduce unemployment faster than the regional or national average, it is clear a lot of this growth is in lower wage jobs.’ Don’t worry James you will be back in a lower wage job in May! Kevin Turvey
  • Score: -13

1:26pm Thu 21 Aug 14

gmsgop says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
(Thanks Julia)!

Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have.

There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod.

If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny.

At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york
Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system.

gwen swinburn
"...they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains." All very well but someone has to do these jobs; just take a look at what happens when a street isn't cleaned for a few days. The aim should be to make jobs like this part of a wider remit and to pay good wages for those who do the essential but unsung jobs. However, though it goes against the grain to say anything positive about CoYC, they do pay the Living Wage. Just blaming Labour isn't good enough and you know it. The systemic problems of local governance derive from years of neglect by central government of the importance of this sector. The result is the cynicism which we now have in relation to local government in England. Though one would think from reading the comments on topics like this that at the next local elections there would be a huge turnout. Notwithstanding that the next election coincides with a general election the turnout will still be pathetically low. The reason ? It makes little difference because local government is basically wholly constrained by Westminster and Whitehall and this results in fewer candidates of potentially national importance becoming councillors. When local government had real power it was the route to national prominence for political figures. Now the route is via public school and (too often) Oxford University. Machine politicians with no understanding of the mechanics of local government and thus little likelihood of redressing the situation.
Well well, of course the streets need to be cleaned, like many basic services that we pay our taxes for - but instead of focussing on basic needs, York labour so end much staff time & borrow much £ for vanity projects.
The point of course was that the council staff & Cllrs are more than happy to pass on low skill duties to citizens but don't want intellectual input that we can equally provide.

I am delighted that the one thing they have done is to use our taxes to pay the living wage - but not such an achievement is it when all they have to do us to reduce our services to pay for it. Pity it is just a supplement rather than an entitlement that can be dropped at any time. I am truly disappointed that #york labour who I vote for, didn't have the courage of their convictions to properly roll it into the pay structure.

Regarding giving more powers to local govt, fine until you come across local govt like York that spends money on a whim, with no cost benefit but just on a political whim. Until that kind of excess is sorted I'm not at all comfortable with any more powers being transferred to local government - as usual,the few a users of our taxes make all suffer.

Gwen swinburn
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: (Thanks Julia)! Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have. There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod. If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny. At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system. gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]"...they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains." All very well but someone has to do these jobs; just take a look at what happens when a street isn't cleaned for a few days. The aim should be to make jobs like this part of a wider remit and to pay good wages for those who do the essential but unsung jobs. However, though it goes against the grain to say anything positive about CoYC, they do pay the Living Wage. Just blaming Labour isn't good enough and you know it. The systemic problems of local governance derive from years of neglect by central government of the importance of this sector. The result is the cynicism which we now have in relation to local government in England. Though one would think from reading the comments on topics like this that at the next local elections there would be a huge turnout. Notwithstanding that the next election coincides with a general election the turnout will still be pathetically low. The reason ? It makes little difference because local government is basically wholly constrained by Westminster and Whitehall and this results in fewer candidates of potentially national importance becoming councillors. When local government had real power it was the route to national prominence for political figures. Now the route is via public school and (too often) Oxford University. Machine politicians with no understanding of the mechanics of local government and thus little likelihood of redressing the situation.[/p][/quote]Well well, of course the streets need to be cleaned, like many basic services that we pay our taxes for - but instead of focussing on basic needs, York labour so end much staff time & borrow much £ for vanity projects. The point of course was that the council staff & Cllrs are more than happy to pass on low skill duties to citizens but don't want intellectual input that we can equally provide. I am delighted that the one thing they have done is to use our taxes to pay the living wage - but not such an achievement is it when all they have to do us to reduce our services to pay for it. Pity it is just a supplement rather than an entitlement that can be dropped at any time. I am truly disappointed that #york labour who I vote for, didn't have the courage of their convictions to properly roll it into the pay structure. Regarding giving more powers to local govt, fine until you come across local govt like York that spends money on a whim, with no cost benefit but just on a political whim. Until that kind of excess is sorted I'm not at all comfortable with any more powers being transferred to local government - as usual,the few a users of our taxes make all suffer. Gwen swinburn gmsgop
  • Score: -27

2:22pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Anna Gramme says...

gmsgop wrote:
Anna Gramme wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
(Thanks Julia)!

Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have.

There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod.

If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny.

At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york
Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system.

gwen swinburn
"...they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains." All very well but someone has to do these jobs; just take a look at what happens when a street isn't cleaned for a few days. The aim should be to make jobs like this part of a wider remit and to pay good wages for those who do the essential but unsung jobs. However, though it goes against the grain to say anything positive about CoYC, they do pay the Living Wage. Just blaming Labour isn't good enough and you know it. The systemic problems of local governance derive from years of neglect by central government of the importance of this sector. The result is the cynicism which we now have in relation to local government in England. Though one would think from reading the comments on topics like this that at the next local elections there would be a huge turnout. Notwithstanding that the next election coincides with a general election the turnout will still be pathetically low. The reason ? It makes little difference because local government is basically wholly constrained by Westminster and Whitehall and this results in fewer candidates of potentially national importance becoming councillors. When local government had real power it was the route to national prominence for political figures. Now the route is via public school and (too often) Oxford University. Machine politicians with no understanding of the mechanics of local government and thus little likelihood of redressing the situation.
Well well, of course the streets need to be cleaned, like many basic services that we pay our taxes for - but instead of focussing on basic needs, York labour so end much staff time & borrow much £ for vanity projects.
The point of course was that the council staff & Cllrs are more than happy to pass on low skill duties to citizens but don't want intellectual input that we can equally provide.

I am delighted that the one thing they have done is to use our taxes to pay the living wage - but not such an achievement is it when all they have to do us to reduce our services to pay for it. Pity it is just a supplement rather than an entitlement that can be dropped at any time. I am truly disappointed that #york labour who I vote for, didn't have the courage of their convictions to properly roll it into the pay structure.

Regarding giving more powers to local govt, fine until you come across local govt like York that spends money on a whim, with no cost benefit but just on a political whim. Until that kind of excess is sorted I'm not at all comfortable with any more powers being transferred to local government - as usual,the few a users of our taxes make all suffer.

Gwen swinburn
If by vanity projects you mean tidying up the city's appearance, upon which it relies for much of its bread and butter, then I would say that it was money well spent, particularly as many improvements will have long duration. Other cities similar to York do exactly the same thing. One would like all jobs to be high status and high pay. Indeed it would be a happier world if we were all paid equally. All councils have been constrained to reduce services and York has got off pretty lightly compared with many. The problem of how to employ people who have no qualifications has bedevilled western economies since heavy industrial production reliant on manual labour finished, so in one sense one could say that the number of jobs in tourist related occupations, cleaning etc is a good thing. What the article does not tell us is how many jobs were created in e.g. Burnley. There have been many good jobs created in York recently. The universities have expanded rapidly for example. It is the proportion of "good" to "poor" jobs which doesn't look so good. However, when one looks at the the last report by the Centre For Cities and (for example) the number of empty long term retail premises and the relative deprivation figures across the city, the quality of schools and so on, one sees that York's economic position is a good deal healthier than most northern cities and is closer in character to a southern one. As for using our taxes, all the business rate and business taxes go to Westminster to be redistributed on a national basis and council tax, itself heavily constrained by Westminster, furnishes only a proportion of capital expenditure, the rest coming from central government precepts. As I said -and on this we might agree up to a point- local government will not improve until it has more responsibility, not less, to raise taxes and spend as it sees the need (as governments do) on a local basis, this is the decentralised European model; to be accountable to the electorate on a four year basis when local issues will be the deciding factor and in which all will have a stake and only a fool would not vote; to remove the blight of national party politics from local government, when local politicians say what national parties say. Unless we have a government which is prepared to make this leap of faith - and neither Labour nor Conservatives seem prepared to relinquish their grip - then we are condemned to this endless bickering and point scoring about local issues. York has done many very positive things under all administrations and two examples would be the Museums Trust and the new library trust, where politics are virtually absent. To return to your point about poo and litter, this too might be an area where local initiative and enthusiasm could be harnessed, though this is yet again something which needs pump priming, vision and drive. I see no party prepared to push this. I'm off to walk the dog.
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: (Thanks Julia)! Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have. There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod. If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny. At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system. gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]"...they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains." All very well but someone has to do these jobs; just take a look at what happens when a street isn't cleaned for a few days. The aim should be to make jobs like this part of a wider remit and to pay good wages for those who do the essential but unsung jobs. However, though it goes against the grain to say anything positive about CoYC, they do pay the Living Wage. Just blaming Labour isn't good enough and you know it. The systemic problems of local governance derive from years of neglect by central government of the importance of this sector. The result is the cynicism which we now have in relation to local government in England. Though one would think from reading the comments on topics like this that at the next local elections there would be a huge turnout. Notwithstanding that the next election coincides with a general election the turnout will still be pathetically low. The reason ? It makes little difference because local government is basically wholly constrained by Westminster and Whitehall and this results in fewer candidates of potentially national importance becoming councillors. When local government had real power it was the route to national prominence for political figures. Now the route is via public school and (too often) Oxford University. Machine politicians with no understanding of the mechanics of local government and thus little likelihood of redressing the situation.[/p][/quote]Well well, of course the streets need to be cleaned, like many basic services that we pay our taxes for - but instead of focussing on basic needs, York labour so end much staff time & borrow much £ for vanity projects. The point of course was that the council staff & Cllrs are more than happy to pass on low skill duties to citizens but don't want intellectual input that we can equally provide. I am delighted that the one thing they have done is to use our taxes to pay the living wage - but not such an achievement is it when all they have to do us to reduce our services to pay for it. Pity it is just a supplement rather than an entitlement that can be dropped at any time. I am truly disappointed that #york labour who I vote for, didn't have the courage of their convictions to properly roll it into the pay structure. Regarding giving more powers to local govt, fine until you come across local govt like York that spends money on a whim, with no cost benefit but just on a political whim. Until that kind of excess is sorted I'm not at all comfortable with any more powers being transferred to local government - as usual,the few a users of our taxes make all suffer. Gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]If by vanity projects you mean tidying up the city's appearance, upon which it relies for much of its bread and butter, then I would say that it was money well spent, particularly as many improvements will have long duration. Other cities similar to York do exactly the same thing. One would like all jobs to be high status and high pay. Indeed it would be a happier world if we were all paid equally. All councils have been constrained to reduce services and York has got off pretty lightly compared with many. The problem of how to employ people who have no qualifications has bedevilled western economies since heavy industrial production reliant on manual labour finished, so in one sense one could say that the number of jobs in tourist related occupations, cleaning etc is a good thing. What the article does not tell us is how many jobs were created in e.g. Burnley. There have been many good jobs created in York recently. The universities have expanded rapidly for example. It is the proportion of "good" to "poor" jobs which doesn't look so good. However, when one looks at the the last report by the Centre For Cities and (for example) the number of empty long term retail premises and the relative deprivation figures across the city, the quality of schools and so on, one sees that York's economic position is a good deal healthier than most northern cities and is closer in character to a southern one. As for using our taxes, all the business rate and business taxes go to Westminster to be redistributed on a national basis and council tax, itself heavily constrained by Westminster, furnishes only a proportion of capital expenditure, the rest coming from central government precepts. As I said -and on this we might agree up to a point- local government will not improve until it has more responsibility, not less, to raise taxes and spend as it sees the need (as governments do) on a local basis, this is the decentralised European model; to be accountable to the electorate on a four year basis when local issues will be the deciding factor and in which all will have a stake and only a fool would not vote; to remove the blight of national party politics from local government, when local politicians say what national parties say. Unless we have a government which is prepared to make this leap of faith - and neither Labour nor Conservatives seem prepared to relinquish their grip - then we are condemned to this endless bickering and point scoring about local issues. York has done many very positive things under all administrations and two examples would be the Museums Trust and the new library trust, where politics are virtually absent. To return to your point about poo and litter, this too might be an area where local initiative and enthusiasm could be harnessed, though this is yet again something which needs pump priming, vision and drive. I see no party prepared to push this. I'm off to walk the dog. Anna Gramme
  • Score: 8

2:54pm Thu 21 Aug 14

gmsgop says...

"Anna" no one can read this - if you want anyone to bother - use paragraphs pl
"Anna" no one can read this - if you want anyone to bother - use paragraphs pl gmsgop
  • Score: -70

3:30pm Thu 21 Aug 14

rking1977 says...

Thecynic wrote:
rking1977 wrote:
Well, there's a surprise - tourism-based economies equal low-paid jobs... especially when the type of tourists York is increasingly attracting want £2 alcopops, a doner kebab and kip four-to-a-room in a TravelLodge.

It's indicative of the trend across Britain though. More low-paid jobs simply means more people who rely on state support. In-work benefits and housing benefits are now among the UK's biggest welfare costs (far, far higher than unemployment benefits).

Britain has become a low-skilled, low-wage economy where the government uses taxpayers' money to subsidise huge businesses so they can pay staff an inadequate wage.

Time to get tough on scroungers, maybe starting with the biggest chains on every highstreet.
Absolutely spot on! It's totally crazy that the Government should give away more (much more) in benefits to in-work people rather than to those the system was designed for, namely those out of work!
It doesn't happen in most other Countries, so why here?
Absolutely agree. The UK has a staggeringly high proportion of badly paid, low-skilled jobs.

After Spain, it has the highest proportion of low-skilled jobs of any OECD country - including Turkey, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Mexico, Poland (and many other less wealthy nations). 22% of UK jobs need only a primary school education, compared to just 5% in Germany and Sweden. (All from a 2014 CIPD study).

I suppose while industry in places like Germany and Scandinavia compete on quality, the UK tries to do everything as cheaply as possible - stinting on wages, subcontracting (often overseas), poor skills training, zero hours contracts.

This model doesn't work in an expensive country - it has to be propped up by in-work benefits -and unless that's addressed, the nation's benefit bill will only go up.
[quote][p][bold]Thecynic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rking1977[/bold] wrote: Well, there's a surprise - tourism-based economies equal low-paid jobs... especially when the type of tourists York is increasingly attracting want £2 alcopops, a doner kebab and kip four-to-a-room in a TravelLodge. It's indicative of the trend across Britain though. More low-paid jobs simply means more people who rely on state support. In-work benefits and housing benefits are now among the UK's biggest welfare costs (far, far higher than unemployment benefits). Britain has become a low-skilled, low-wage economy where the government uses taxpayers' money to subsidise huge businesses so they can pay staff an inadequate wage. Time to get tough on scroungers, maybe starting with the biggest chains on every highstreet.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on! It's totally crazy that the Government should give away more (much more) in benefits to in-work people rather than to those the system was designed for, namely those out of work! It doesn't happen in most other Countries, so why here?[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree. The UK has a staggeringly high proportion of badly paid, low-skilled jobs. After Spain, it has the highest proportion of low-skilled jobs of any OECD country - including Turkey, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Mexico, Poland (and many other less wealthy nations). 22% of UK jobs need only a primary school education, compared to just 5% in Germany and Sweden. (All from a 2014 CIPD study). I suppose while industry in places like Germany and Scandinavia compete on quality, the UK tries to do everything as cheaply as possible - stinting on wages, subcontracting (often overseas), poor skills training, zero hours contracts. This model doesn't work in an expensive country - it has to be propped up by in-work benefits -and unless that's addressed, the nation's benefit bill will only go up. rking1977
  • Score: 13

4:14pm Thu 21 Aug 14

courier46 says...

gmsgop wrote:
"AnnaLike it.Lol
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: "AnnaLike it.Lol courier46
  • Score: -18

4:45pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Ellie-Badger says...

Hmm. Part time jobs and zero hours contracts. Have you looked at the council vacancy list lately? Nearly everything offered on there is casual, part time, living wage, zero hour contracts. Where would these "better jobs" come from? Can't just magic one out of thin air
Hmm. Part time jobs and zero hours contracts. Have you looked at the council vacancy list lately? Nearly everything offered on there is casual, part time, living wage, zero hour contracts. Where would these "better jobs" come from? Can't just magic one out of thin air Ellie-Badger
  • Score: -6

6:37pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Anna Gramme says...

gmsgop wrote:
"Anna" no one can read this - if you want anyone to bother - use paragraphs pl
If you can't be bothered then that's your loss.
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: "Anna" no one can read this - if you want anyone to bother - use paragraphs pl[/p][/quote]If you can't be bothered then that's your loss. Anna Gramme
  • Score: 16

7:27pm Thu 21 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

Can't they bring an apple iphone factory here ??
Can't they bring an apple iphone factory here ?? smudge2
  • Score: -13

8:07pm Thu 21 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
York2000 wrote:
Fanny Free House - Sorry, I meant an alternative councillor/council leader (across all parties).

Excellent post. I think this nails Britain at the moment:

''Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.''
I'm not convinced we have leaders, I guess figure heads would be my description.

As for the minimum wage it should be replaced with pay banding.

A company paying the lower band (current minimum wage) to it's employees should have it's profit and loss account investigated annually. After all their business is being subsidised indirectly by the tax payer.

A company paying mid band (living wage) should be scrutinised every 2 years.

Upper band (50p an hour above living wage) no impact.

We also need to realign our thinking on who we determine are scroungers, is it those who receive benefit or those who create the need for benefit for the sake of inflated profit.
Who would pay for these 'investigations'?

Funny that you think that business owners are minted and their staff downtrodden. Every report published suggests that start-up entrepreneurs operate way below minimum wage. Many of us for years, huge personal and financial sacrifice with many going bust along the way. So it is nice to know that the likes of you want to dictate what we should earn and what we should pay.
Please feel free to start a business or two and take people off unemployment benefit. Then your comments may be valued.
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Fanny Free House - Sorry, I meant an alternative councillor/council leader (across all parties). Excellent post. I think this nails Britain at the moment: ''Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.''[/p][/quote]I'm not convinced we have leaders, I guess figure heads would be my description. As for the minimum wage it should be replaced with pay banding. A company paying the lower band (current minimum wage) to it's employees should have it's profit and loss account investigated annually. After all their business is being subsidised indirectly by the tax payer. A company paying mid band (living wage) should be scrutinised every 2 years. Upper band (50p an hour above living wage) no impact. We also need to realign our thinking on who we determine are scroungers, is it those who receive benefit or those who create the need for benefit for the sake of inflated profit.[/p][/quote]Who would pay for these 'investigations'? Funny that you think that business owners are minted and their staff downtrodden. Every report published suggests that start-up entrepreneurs operate way below minimum wage. Many of us for years, huge personal and financial sacrifice with many going bust along the way. So it is nice to know that the likes of you want to dictate what we should earn and what we should pay. Please feel free to start a business or two and take people off unemployment benefit. Then your comments may be valued. eeoodares
  • Score: -39

8:41pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Jack Ham says...

gmsgop wrote:
Anna Gramme wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
(Thanks Julia)!

Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have.

There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod.

If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny.

At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york
Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system.

gwen swinburn
"...they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains." All very well but someone has to do these jobs; just take a look at what happens when a street isn't cleaned for a few days. The aim should be to make jobs like this part of a wider remit and to pay good wages for those who do the essential but unsung jobs. However, though it goes against the grain to say anything positive about CoYC, they do pay the Living Wage. Just blaming Labour isn't good enough and you know it. The systemic problems of local governance derive from years of neglect by central government of the importance of this sector. The result is the cynicism which we now have in relation to local government in England. Though one would think from reading the comments on topics like this that at the next local elections there would be a huge turnout. Notwithstanding that the next election coincides with a general election the turnout will still be pathetically low. The reason ? It makes little difference because local government is basically wholly constrained by Westminster and Whitehall and this results in fewer candidates of potentially national importance becoming councillors. When local government had real power it was the route to national prominence for political figures. Now the route is via public school and (too often) Oxford University. Machine politicians with no understanding of the mechanics of local government and thus little likelihood of redressing the situation.
Well well, of course the streets need to be cleaned, like many basic services that we pay our taxes for - but instead of focussing on basic needs, York labour so end much staff time & borrow much £ for vanity projects.
The point of course was that the council staff & Cllrs are more than happy to pass on low skill duties to citizens but don't want intellectual input that we can equally provide.

I am delighted that the one thing they have done is to use our taxes to pay the living wage - but not such an achievement is it when all they have to do us to reduce our services to pay for it. Pity it is just a supplement rather than an entitlement that can be dropped at any time. I am truly disappointed that #york labour who I vote for, didn't have the courage of their convictions to properly roll it into the pay structure.

Regarding giving more powers to local govt, fine until you come across local govt like York that spends money on a whim, with no cost benefit but just on a political whim. Until that kind of excess is sorted I'm not at all comfortable with any more powers being transferred to local government - as usual,the few a users of our taxes make all suffer.

Gwen swinburn
Spot on!
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: (Thanks Julia)! Ideally we would find the dynamic hard working and innovative leaders that this city deserves- but for the moment we have to make do with what we have. There is talent in the city and universities but it is not being 'exploited' for the benefit of our city. Blame Kersten England and her staff as well as the councillors for that - they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains - as it will expose the limited capacities in house- they will refute this - but then the names of the few outsiders involved is a dead giveaway------ to think Kersten used to say she loves 'challenge' no she doesn't, just like the labour leadership .....peas in a pod. If James is to be taken at his word we need to get that economic (development) strategy, review the frame conditions which have changed, and then properly attach metrics, projects and actions from the council and others to it- with human resource effort and finance attached- and done in full view of council scrutiny. At the moment we know nothing, economic development funded projects and staff spend time on who knows what- except for entering themselves for competitions, prizes and trips which we cannot account for- but hey much more fun travelling round various continents promoting an emporer with no clothes project that delivering on the ground in #york Let's get back to basics - that includes a proper understanding of our economy not the rose tinted spin our James, spins. First step? Get the economic (development) staff working in core needs not fancy indulgences- get proper project output and outcome based programmes and projects within a properly defined strategy in the full light of the Council democratic system. gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]"...they would rather exploit citizens to clean dog poo, and streets than use our brains." All very well but someone has to do these jobs; just take a look at what happens when a street isn't cleaned for a few days. The aim should be to make jobs like this part of a wider remit and to pay good wages for those who do the essential but unsung jobs. However, though it goes against the grain to say anything positive about CoYC, they do pay the Living Wage. Just blaming Labour isn't good enough and you know it. The systemic problems of local governance derive from years of neglect by central government of the importance of this sector. The result is the cynicism which we now have in relation to local government in England. Though one would think from reading the comments on topics like this that at the next local elections there would be a huge turnout. Notwithstanding that the next election coincides with a general election the turnout will still be pathetically low. The reason ? It makes little difference because local government is basically wholly constrained by Westminster and Whitehall and this results in fewer candidates of potentially national importance becoming councillors. When local government had real power it was the route to national prominence for political figures. Now the route is via public school and (too often) Oxford University. Machine politicians with no understanding of the mechanics of local government and thus little likelihood of redressing the situation.[/p][/quote]Well well, of course the streets need to be cleaned, like many basic services that we pay our taxes for - but instead of focussing on basic needs, York labour so end much staff time & borrow much £ for vanity projects. The point of course was that the council staff & Cllrs are more than happy to pass on low skill duties to citizens but don't want intellectual input that we can equally provide. I am delighted that the one thing they have done is to use our taxes to pay the living wage - but not such an achievement is it when all they have to do us to reduce our services to pay for it. Pity it is just a supplement rather than an entitlement that can be dropped at any time. I am truly disappointed that #york labour who I vote for, didn't have the courage of their convictions to properly roll it into the pay structure. Regarding giving more powers to local govt, fine until you come across local govt like York that spends money on a whim, with no cost benefit but just on a political whim. Until that kind of excess is sorted I'm not at all comfortable with any more powers being transferred to local government - as usual,the few a users of our taxes make all suffer. Gwen swinburn[/p][/quote]Spot on! Jack Ham
  • Score: -67

10:09pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

eeoodares wrote:
Fanny Free House wrote:
York2000 wrote:
Fanny Free House - Sorry, I meant an alternative councillor/council leader (across all parties).

Excellent post. I think this nails Britain at the moment:

''Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.''
I'm not convinced we have leaders, I guess figure heads would be my description.

As for the minimum wage it should be replaced with pay banding.

A company paying the lower band (current minimum wage) to it's employees should have it's profit and loss account investigated annually. After all their business is being subsidised indirectly by the tax payer.

A company paying mid band (living wage) should be scrutinised every 2 years.

Upper band (50p an hour above living wage) no impact.

We also need to realign our thinking on who we determine are scroungers, is it those who receive benefit or those who create the need for benefit for the sake of inflated profit.
Who would pay for these 'investigations'?

Funny that you think that business owners are minted and their staff downtrodden. Every report published suggests that start-up entrepreneurs operate way below minimum wage. Many of us for years, huge personal and financial sacrifice with many going bust along the way. So it is nice to know that the likes of you want to dictate what we should earn and what we should pay.
Please feel free to start a business or two and take people off unemployment benefit. Then your comments may be valued.
Strange enough I don't think it's funny at all, I don't think all business owners are minted, but some are seriously taking the P@SS.

There are businesses posting massive profits while paying employees minimum wage. What I'm saying is that it's not acceptable that those who can afford to pay better wages but prefer to take excessive profits and have the tax payers subsidise employees standards of living.

At no point do I dictate what business owners should earn what I do say is that some take advantage of the minimum wage for personal gain. You can take a narrow view of whats happening and if you wish personalise my comment to your situation, but that doesn't deal with the bigger picture.

I do not suggest that start-up business pay above minimum wage but when success comes the employees should share that success therefore profitability dictates wages. But then the likes of some people and big business prefer to hang on to minimum wage for personal and shareholders benefits.

If I were inclined to start another successful business I would also want to respect and reward my staff inline with said success, I don't need anyones permission to feel free to do so. As for the value of my comments, it is likely those who feel most threatened by them are likely to be those who have most to hide.

Minimum wage should not be the maximum wage when businesses are successful, furthermore I maintain that a form of pay banding is the way to a fairer more stable economy, one that is not massively subsidised by the tax payer.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Fanny Free House - Sorry, I meant an alternative councillor/council leader (across all parties). Excellent post. I think this nails Britain at the moment: ''Minimum wage is a double edged sword, it sets the legal minimum pay rate (which is good) but also tells employers the lowest pay rate they can get away with regardless of how successful the business is.''[/p][/quote]I'm not convinced we have leaders, I guess figure heads would be my description. As for the minimum wage it should be replaced with pay banding. A company paying the lower band (current minimum wage) to it's employees should have it's profit and loss account investigated annually. After all their business is being subsidised indirectly by the tax payer. A company paying mid band (living wage) should be scrutinised every 2 years. Upper band (50p an hour above living wage) no impact. We also need to realign our thinking on who we determine are scroungers, is it those who receive benefit or those who create the need for benefit for the sake of inflated profit.[/p][/quote]Who would pay for these 'investigations'? Funny that you think that business owners are minted and their staff downtrodden. Every report published suggests that start-up entrepreneurs operate way below minimum wage. Many of us for years, huge personal and financial sacrifice with many going bust along the way. So it is nice to know that the likes of you want to dictate what we should earn and what we should pay. Please feel free to start a business or two and take people off unemployment benefit. Then your comments may be valued.[/p][/quote]Strange enough I don't think it's funny at all, I don't think all business owners are minted, but some are seriously taking the P@SS. There are businesses posting massive profits while paying employees minimum wage. What I'm saying is that it's not acceptable that those who can afford to pay better wages but prefer to take excessive profits and have the tax payers subsidise employees standards of living. At no point do I dictate what business owners should earn what I do say is that some take advantage of the minimum wage for personal gain. You can take a narrow view of whats happening and if you wish personalise my comment to your situation, but that doesn't deal with the bigger picture. I do not suggest that start-up business pay above minimum wage but when success comes the employees should share that success therefore profitability dictates wages. But then the likes of some people and big business prefer to hang on to minimum wage for personal and shareholders benefits. If I were inclined to start another successful business I would also want to respect and reward my staff inline with said success, I don't need anyones permission to feel free to do so. As for the value of my comments, it is likely those who feel most threatened by them are likely to be those who have most to hide. Minimum wage should not be the maximum wage when businesses are successful, furthermore I maintain that a form of pay banding is the way to a fairer more stable economy, one that is not massively subsidised by the tax payer. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -36

5:19pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Krozelle says...

I hope this initiative is in no way linked to the very questionable "Gentlemen's Club" announced earlier this week.

Not the kind of better jobs we're looking for!
I hope this initiative is in no way linked to the very questionable "Gentlemen's Club" announced earlier this week. Not the kind of better jobs we're looking for! Krozelle
  • Score: -8

6:05pm Sun 24 Aug 14

goatman says...

" the UK tries to do everything as cheaply as possible "
Thereby lies the rub.
" the UK tries to do everything as cheaply as possible " Thereby lies the rub. goatman
  • Score: 3

10:19am Mon 25 Aug 14

Yorkkeiyyer says...

Which higher paid job creating degrees are top universities creating?

What are people studying that pays these aspirational salaries?

Consider that, then work out where and why those employers are where they are already. What would make York attractive for them to relocate or for others to start similar ones?

What will the industries of the 2020s be doing in the UK? Will they be producing IPADs? Parts for space ships? Food? Pharma? Does York need an airport at Elvington? Would it be used? Would a space port be any good there? Is the river link any good for goods transport?

What does the Leeds City Partnership and the Central government long term economic plan say for York already? Are we happy with that?
Which higher paid job creating degrees are top universities creating? What are people studying that pays these aspirational salaries? Consider that, then work out where and why those employers are where they are already. What would make York attractive for them to relocate or for others to start similar ones? What will the industries of the 2020s be doing in the UK? Will they be producing IPADs? Parts for space ships? Food? Pharma? Does York need an airport at Elvington? Would it be used? Would a space port be any good there? Is the river link any good for goods transport? What does the Leeds City Partnership and the Central government long term economic plan say for York already? Are we happy with that? Yorkkeiyyer
  • Score: -7

11:04am Mon 25 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

Anna Gramme wrote:
gmsgop wrote:
"Anna" no one can read this - if you want anyone to bother - use paragraphs pl
If you can't be bothered then that's your loss.
Well quite. I read it perfectly easily. Lowest of the low really to pull someone up on grammar, Gwen. Is this not an inclusive forum?
[quote][p][bold]Anna Gramme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: "Anna" no one can read this - if you want anyone to bother - use paragraphs pl[/p][/quote]If you can't be bothered then that's your loss.[/p][/quote]Well quite. I read it perfectly easily. Lowest of the low really to pull someone up on grammar, Gwen. Is this not an inclusive forum? CaroleBaines
  • Score: 16

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree