Anger over pay rises for City of York Council directors (From York Press)

The greed of the upper echelons within York City Council is an absolute disgrace when many people who are paying for those salaries are currently struggling to make ends meet.

Well the Chief Exec says the work load has increased. So why not go see the other teams who's workload has increased and lose money in the pay and grading review. Why not talk to those teams about fairness.
And why are members of staff still suspended for over a year on full pay????

Manlyperv wrote:
Oh boo hoo, why didnt you get a job with the council then? they have worked hard to get where they are and deserve every penny!

I am sure that some of them have worked hard for their money, but that's not the point. The point is that there are cuts coming right across the board and yet here we have a council that is, over time, putting up wages for its highest earners. Plus, and I stand to be corrected, I am sure that some of these managers have presided over some of the monumental C**k ups that have been inflicted on this city over recent years. Clifton Green is a prime example - not only has traffic chaos been caused, but in order to cause that chaos it ran spectacularly over budget - as much as we all hold the Executive responsible, it is senior managers that would have been responsible (or should have been) for the negotiation of the contracts to do the work etc. If performance related pay is brought in, I suspect that there will be managers who are not happy about it!

My heart bleeds for those poor overworked directors whose workload has been increased because of the reduction in the number of posts.
`
I assume our caring Condem councillors will be applying the same logic to all other council workers who will be doing the work of two or more people once their government’s cuts begin to bite.
`
No? What a surprise!

So glad my £1'500 pay cut went to good use, I'm sure they need it more than my family do

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
Well this story sums up the shambles that are the LibDums in York - I think the Press should write to Nick Clegg about this to see what his thoughts are in a time of financial austerity and belt tightening. "Mrs England said: “Our assistant directors are still among the lowest paid in local government and their jobs have increased in size." Call me stupid, but perhaps that's because York isn't the biggest local authority in the land? Come on Press - do some journalism for a change and find out how accurate the comments are. Some of us in the real world that is the private sector haven't had a pay rise for 2 and a half years. Relatively significant numbers of those in the muppet land that is the public sector are facing redundancy due to said times of financial austerity and belt tightening. And yet the head muppets allow this to happen because they do not want to tackle the problem. Oh, and they want to spend £millions on the Palace of York, £millions on cycle lanes and more road alterations etc etc. You couldn't make it up - you really couldn't make it up. I despair!

The Water End cycle scheme-part of the new Orbital Ring route- is funded wholly from the modest £3.68m Cycling Demonstration City grant which York received from central Govt. via the Dept.for Transport.
The DfT are also coughing up £2m via the Yorkshire & Humber Regional Transport Board, to upgrade a single A1237 roundabout.
Which do you think gives better value for money?

A&F wrote: 'Oh, and they want to spend £millions on the Palace of York...'

At the risk of appearing a one-topic poster, moving to CYC's new HQ will actually save millions in rents/repairs etc.

Have to agree about the big-wigs pay increase though - soon be at BBC levels!

It makes no more sense that an efficiency programme with the highest average departmental salaries making lower paid front line and support take pay cuts in the name of 'savings'.

Disgraceful. Ms England please note.
Disgraceful at a time of job loss.

The council must think the York electorate are a bunch of morons. Why do they even think they will get away with this!? Oh yeah - they make the rules, so if they fancy a pay rise, oh, they get a pay rise. Running a council must be an absolute breeze.

I understand that Alexander knew that the pay for these new posts would be determined by an independent arbiter and that he agreed that was the fairest way to determine their remuneration.
Now he's making cheap political capital by exploiting the ever gullible media and a few of the usual suspects on here are swallowing the line.

My, my. Someone's getting increasingly antsy about the Labour Party, aren't they? What's wrong Minsterview - ticking of the clock getting louder? Unfounded attacks on Roger Pierce yesterday and James Alexander today. "I understand" and "why won't the the Press print the real story" just don't cut it on here I'm afraid but then why should I expect you to understand that?
.
Why don't you say something good about your party instead of the usual slag-offs of someone else's? Usual suspects, indeed. May 2011 - Tee-hee.

Dear Minsterview,

I am afraid you understand incorrectly. This is not a cheap political point but a matter of fairness that I feel very strongly about.

The council's ruling Executive delegated an increase in Assistant Director (AD) pay levels in the past three months to officers which led to a possible increase in cost of between £0.3m and £0.4m to the authority over the next four years (including on costs and pension contributions).

Following an organisational review at the top levels of the council, it was agreed on 6th July that the number of Directors and Assistant Directors be reduced from 21 to 16, reducing further to 15 in April 2012 to reduce public expenditure.

At the time five officers were being paid at the top of on Chief Officer Grade 10 (£73,401). The remaining 16 were being paid at the top of Chief Officer Grade 9 (£66,068). On 6th July the Executive absolved itself of financial responsibility over senior pay levels by delegating the power of grading to the Council’s Chief Executive.

On 18th August the Chief Executive used this authority to place all 16 new assistant directors deployed into the new pay grade of Chief Officer Grade 10 (£66,068 - £73,401) after taking into account an independent review. This means that all new ADs who were not on Chief Officer Grade 10 will now benefit from an annual incremental pay increase of almost £2.5k per year each over the next four years.

At a time when we are talking about redundancies of the lower paid, Labour felt we cannot sit idly by when the most well paid will get an increase. If we were in a time of prosperity these individuals would deserve higher pay compared to other authorities and taking into account the additional work they will carry out. However we are not at that time.

I wrestled with this information for a week and half. As a democrat I put the information to my group members and they decided along with me that we should call for a halt to the regarding that would lead to additional pay and cost to the Council.

I waited until Assistant Director interviews were completed before releasing this infromation to the public as I did not want to add to the stress of assistant directors during the interview process.

Lower paid members of staff have never been able to use benchmarking as an argument for higher pay. At a time when redundancies in the private and public sector are becoming commonplace, I cannot morally support the decision the Liberal Democrat Executive has taken to allow this increase in Assistant Director pay, irrespective of the good work our Assistant Directors do. I have called for what the Liberal Democrat Executive should have done and that is to take responsibility for this situation and call for all new Assistant Directors to be paid on Chief Officer Grade 9. In some circumstances this will lead to a pay decrease but at least it protects the longer term security of their jobs and of some of those that they manage. To not do so would allow the Liberal Democrats appear to operate a two-tier system of pay and reward for lower and more well paid staff.

Such an increase will see ADs paid an additional £218k to £293k over the next four years before on costs and pension contributions. The Council could keep 4 homecare workers or 5 cleaners in employment over this period for this additional cost. This decision and course of action was not taken lightly. The decision Labour has taken will not help staff moral in management but to not do so would be far more detrimental to the moral of hundreds of lower-paif Council workers who took a pay reduction in the recent pay and grading review.

I thought to myself how can lower paid staff be looked in the eye and told they will be losing their jobs or taking a pay decrease in the future when their managers are receiving an increase year on year? I know I couldn’t. Therefore we had to act.

Although the Liberal Democrats are in control of the Council, Labour has taken the tough decision over this situation that they should have.

The latest I have been told is that after my call there will now be a review within the first year. Therefore there will be no initial increase in cost the Council and the possibility of stopping any such increases.

This is what I understand of the process. This explanation makes no reference to the pay of individual members of staff and I would not disclose this information.

All other groups had the opportunity to call for what we have done and no other group took this course of action.

Councillor James Alexander
Leader of City of York Council’s Labour Opposition Group

pedalling paul wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote: Well this story sums up the shambles that are the LibDums in York - I think the Press should write to Nick Clegg about this to see what his thoughts are in a time of financial austerity and belt tightening. "Mrs England said: “Our assistant directors are still among the lowest paid in local government and their jobs have increased in size." Call me stupid, but perhaps that's because York isn't the biggest local authority in the land? Come on Press - do some journalism for a change and find out how accurate the comments are. Some of us in the real world that is the private sector haven't had a pay rise for 2 and a half years. Relatively significant numbers of those in the muppet land that is the public sector are facing redundancy due to said times of financial austerity and belt tightening. And yet the head muppets allow this to happen because they do not want to tackle the problem. Oh, and they want to spend £millions on the Palace of York, £millions on cycle lanes and more road alterations etc etc. You couldn't make it up - you really couldn't make it up. I despair!

The Water End cycle scheme-part of the new Orbital Ring route- is funded wholly from the modest £3.68m Cycling Demonstration City grant which York received from central Govt. via the Dept.for Transport. The DfT are also coughing up £2m via the Yorkshire & Humber Regional Transport Board, to upgrade a single A1237 roundabout. Which do you think gives better value for money?

To the moderators on this site:-

I have no idea what criteria you use when considering what postings to remove. However, if you insist on removing my first posting, which you did, despite the fact that I was not offensive in any way, (and yes, I do regularly call myself and friends "muppets")then please do not show what appears to be political bias by leaving the response to my posting that I have quoted above whilst at the same time removing all the responses to Pedalling Paul. I would also question why you felt the need to remove my response to PP and Mooseknuckle despite the fact that I was again not offensive in any way.

Answers on a postcard please..............
....

James Alexander wrote:
Dear Minsterview, I am afraid you understand incorrectly. This is not a cheap political point but a matter of fairness that I feel very strongly about. The council's ruling Executive delegated an increase in Assistant Director (AD) pay levels in the past three months to officers which led to a possible increase in cost of between £0.3m and £0.4m to the authority over the next four years (including on costs and pension contributions). Following an organisational review at the top levels of the council, it was agreed on 6th July that the number of Directors and Assistant Directors be reduced from 21 to 16, reducing further to 15 in April 2012 to reduce public expenditure. At the time five officers were being paid at the top of on Chief Officer Grade 10 (£73,401). The remaining 16 were being paid at the top of Chief Officer Grade 9 (£66,068). On 6th July the Executive absolved itself of financial responsibility over senior pay levels by delegating the power of grading to the Council’s Chief Executive. On 18th August the Chief Executive used this authority to place all 16 new assistant directors deployed into the new pay grade of Chief Officer Grade 10 (£66,068 - £73,401) after taking into account an independent review. This means that all new ADs who were not on Chief Officer Grade 10 will now benefit from an annual incremental pay increase of almost £2.5k per year each over the next four years. At a time when we are talking about redundancies of the lower paid, Labour felt we cannot sit idly by when the most well paid will get an increase. If we were in a time of prosperity these individuals would deserve higher pay compared to other authorities and taking into account the additional work they will carry out. However we are not at that time. I wrestled with this information for a week and half. As a democrat I put the information to my group members and they decided along with me that we should call for a halt to the regarding that would lead to additional pay and cost to the Council. I waited until Assistant Director interviews were completed before releasing this infromation to the public as I did not want to add to the stress of assistant directors during the interview process. Lower paid members of staff have never been able to use benchmarking as an argument for higher pay. At a time when redundancies in the private and public sector are becoming commonplace, I cannot morally support the decision the Liberal Democrat Executive has taken to allow this increase in Assistant Director pay, irrespective of the good work our Assistant Directors do. I have called for what the Liberal Democrat Executive should have done and that is to take responsibility for this situation and call for all new Assistant Directors to be paid on Chief Officer Grade 9. In some circumstances this will lead to a pay decrease but at least it protects the longer term security of their jobs and of some of those that they manage. To not do so would allow the Liberal Democrats appear to operate a two-tier system of pay and reward for lower and more well paid staff. Such an increase will see ADs paid an additional £218k to £293k over the next four years before on costs and pension contributions. The Council could keep 4 homecare workers or 5 cleaners in employment over this period for this additional cost. This decision and course of action was not taken lightly. The decision Labour has taken will not help staff moral in management but to not do so would be far more detrimental to the moral of hundreds of lower-paif Council workers who took a pay reduction in the recent pay and grading review. I thought to myself how can lower paid staff be looked in the eye and told they will be losing their jobs or taking a pay decrease in the future when their managers are receiving an increase year on year? I know I couldn’t. Therefore we had to act. Although the Liberal Democrats are in control of the Council, Labour has taken the tough decision over this situation that they should have. The latest I have been told is that after my call there will now be a review within the first year. Therefore there will be no initial increase in cost the Council and the possibility of stopping any such increases. This is what I understand of the process. This explanation makes no reference to the pay of individual members of staff and I would not disclose this information. All other groups had the opportunity to call for what we have done and no other group took this course of action. Councillor James Alexander Leader of City of York Council’s Labour Opposition Group

I would be very careful Mr Alexander. Whilst I respect the fact that you post under your own name, unlike other councillors at CofYC, it would appear that any anti Libdem comments are being removed today. I would hope, however, that in the interests of free speech your posting will not be removed because quite frankly, and unlike me, you DO know what you are talking about!

Dear AngryandFrustrated,

I appreciate your comment. You don't often get supportive comments on here - but that is not a reason to not explain continue to explain openly and as much as your can under your own name, your point of view. After all Councillors are the employees of the people of York. They deserve to know what we are arguing for on their behalf.

All the best,

James

Agree. Why would anyone go into politics without even the conviction to put their name to their beliefs? Seems pointless to me - and a clear indicator of who is worth voting for and who is not.

I thought to myself how can lower paid staff be looked in the eye and told they will be losing their jobs or taking a pay decrease in the future when their managers are receiving an increase year on year? I know I couldn’t. Therefore we had to act.-James Alexander

Mr Alexander I wonder what the ADs thought about the pay rise? Was it asked for by them or was it thrust upon them, therefore aggravating their very existence? There's no better way to get rid of Managers than give them a controversial and unrequested pay rise, and then, get rid of them when public opinion goes adversely in the Press. N'est pas?

Minsterview wrote:
I understand that Alexander knew that the pay for these new posts would be determined by an independent arbiter and that he agreed that was the fairest way to determine their remuneration. Now he's making cheap political capital by exploiting the ever gullible media and a few of the usual suspects on here are swallowing the line.

I'm with James Alexander and Soothsayer on this one. It's down to an individual's conscience really, it is just immoral to take any kind of pay rise when those lower down in an organisation are taking pay cuts or worse losing their jobs. It is an individual choice, no one forced them to take it. It just smacks of a few golden handshakes and the savings divided amongst those remaining.

I don't know how these independent arbiters come to these sort of figures for the sort of hours and responsabillity these jobs hold. I mean let's see Prime minister 142k, Assistant Director of small city council 66k. One run's the country is in charge of the fate of millions and the country's armed forces. It takes three of the other other to run local "Environment; Housing and Public Protection; Communities and Culture (including Equalities)".

Surely it would have made more business sense to have brought these new A D's in at at much lower level and t.hen only advanced them up the scale if they proved over time that they could in fact do the job.
If they did not like this arrangement the position should have been offered to the second in line for the position who I am sure would and could have done an equally good job as those who were appointed.
If the people who were first offered the jobs did not like the proposed salary scale they would have been free to go elsewhere, if in fact they could get higher paid jobs in the private sector or with other local authorities.
In these hard times, "a bird in hand".

Surely it would have made more business sense to have brought these new A D's in at at much lower level and t.hen only advanced them up the scale if they proved over time that they could in fact do the job.
If they did not like this arrangement the position should have been offered to the second in line for the position who I am sure would and could have done an equally good job as those who were appointed.
If the people who were first offered the jobs did not like the proposed salary scale they would have been free to go elsewhere, if in fact they could get higher paid jobs in the private sector or with other local authorities.
In these hard times, "a bird in hand".

pedalling paul wrote:

AngryandFrustrated wrote:
Well this story sums up the shambles that are the LibDums in York - I think the Press should write to Nick Clegg about this to see what his thoughts are in a time of financial austerity and belt tightening. "Mrs England said: “Our assistant directors are still among the lowest paid in local government and their jobs have increased in size." Call me stupid, but perhaps that's because York isn't the biggest local authority in the land? Come on Press - do some journalism for a change and find out how accurate the comments are. Some of us in the real world that is the private sector haven't had a pay rise for 2 and a half years. Relatively significant numbers of those in the muppet land that is the public sector are facing redundancy due to said times of financial austerity and belt tightening. And yet the head muppets allow this to happen because they do not want to tackle the problem. Oh, and they want to spend £millions on the Palace of York, £millions on cycle lanes and more road alterations etc etc. You couldn't make it up - you really couldn't make it up. I despair!

The Water End cycle scheme-part of the new Orbital Ring route- is funded wholly from the modest £3.68m Cycling Demonstration City grant which York received from central Govt. via the Dept.for Transport.
The DfT are also coughing up £2m via the Yorkshire & Humber Regional Transport Board, to upgrade a single A1237 roundabout.
Which do you think gives better value for money?

P.P the cycling routes/paths/lanes ect funded wholly from the cycling City grant will require ongoing maintenance costs regardless of amount of use, how do you think this will be funded considering c.o.y.c already have a limited amount to spend on roads/paths ?.

i.ll do it for £30.000+expenses