Sheffield City Council meeting - An important Invitation

[Jonny5]

Yep. If its the Tories fault then why was Sheffield council struggling for money for the 13 years that Labour were in power

 

One thing that SCC excel at is treating their voters like idiots.

[*_ash_*]

Tory councils are usually down south, where wages are higher anyway. Its a pointless comparison to be making.

 

Of course it's not a pointless comparison. I'd say for the purpose of this thread, it's actually a very important factor. Wouldn't you be surprised if other Labour/Tory executives had considerably different pay structures than ours in Sheffield?

 

As it happens I've been looking at a few figures, and they are a bit higher down south, but that is to be expected.

 

I wrote this earlier:

though I'd expect perhaps slightly higher in the south.

 

-

 

Could have been better phrased "No I would not trust just any person. " If they happened to be Dr Evil or something I wouldn't trust them. It's a judgment call. Apart from a few possible exceptions, I would support any councilor that pledges to substantially reduce the executive salaries. It's not a difficult position to get your head around.

 

I can get my head around it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I know how things work.

 

I looked at a few councils, and in London was quite surprised myself that there are hundreds who earn more than the PM. (however, it's not a great comparison guide, as the PM isn't doing the job for big money)

 

No, the bold is not wrong. It could be much worse but there is no reason to suspect it would be.

 

Yes it was. You've altered your wording here slightly. You originally said:

Also there is no reason to expect that you would get a city run any worse

 

-

 

If any of the executives are doing their jobs properly there will be plenty of well trained underlings ready to take over at a moments notice should one of them fall ill. If there isn't then just start training someone now.

 

So you will train someone to do a job for a small percentage of what the current people earn? I just can't see it.

 

If my company owners said, right do some training, then if you are better than the current one, we'll pay you a third of his salary, I'll tell them to **** off!

 

-

 

Companies change directors and executives all the time. As long as you phase the changes in, it's ridiculous to think the sky would fall in because we had new management. Things would change but that's the whole idea.

 

Well, perhaps, if your cheaper labour idea works.

 

This is correct, the Condems have systematically favoured wealthier councils that generally happen to vote Tory and are generally down south, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Yep. If its the Tories fault then why was Sheffield council struggling for money for the 13 years that Labour were in power

 

One thing that SCC excel at is treating their voters like idiots.

 

Well posted Jonny.

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2015 at 02:02 ----------

 

As it happens rinz, I CAN see your point of view, and I perhaps didn't get the flippant point you wrote in the beginning because I don't know you as a poster on here. However, I'm looking at this thread, and finding myself dangerously close to defending this council, so I'll be brief with my future responses

 

I can't defend a council that can't even work out my council tax bill, even after I sent them the Maths, and what they had got wrong

Edited March 11, 2015 by *_ash_*

[Cyclone]

 

The thought had occurred to me. The obvious reasons why not are, no time, no money, too vexatious, wouldn't get elected. Just because I'm not standing though, that doesn't mean I can't think.

You don't think anyone would vote for your idea of cutting executive salaries?

It's a put your money/time/effort where you mouth is thing isn't it. If you feel strongly enough about local politics, do something about it.

 

Yes I did and I think it's irrelevant. Find the money next year from something else and do the same again the year after. Go get the shortfall from Capita or Kier or one of he other big companies that Sheffield council is so fond of giving big contracts to. Don't presume to steal our money because there isn't any left to steal.

 

This is just nonsense. Pipe dream economics. Which is why the council aren't behaving like this, they have to live in the real world.

[Anna B]

You don't think anyone would vote for your idea of cutting executive salaries?

It's a put your money/time/effort where you mouth is thing isn't it. If you feel strongly enough about local politics, do something about it.

 

This is just nonsense. Pipe dream economics. Which is why the council aren't behaving like this, they have to live in the real world.

 

I think a lot of people would vote for a reduction in executive salaries, but that in itself isn't enough to form a manifesto around. Once again the answer isn't standing yourself on a single issue, (people have many reasons for not being in a position to do that,) but getting the council to listen to and be sensitive to the feelings of the voting public. Is that too much to ask?

 

It used to be enough to do this by voting, but in Sheffield it seems that as someone has said, it doesn't matter who you vote for the councill still gets in...

[rinzwind]

You don't think anyone would vote for your idea of cutting executive salaries?

 

As *_ash_* already pointed out. Voting for somebody on one issue alone is incredibly naive. People choose to vote for a candidate based on a number of factors as you are no doubt perfectly aware.

 

Being mentally ill, lacking confidence, or being "vexatious" for example are exactly the kind of things that can makes you lose (or not gain) votes. It has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong on an issue or whether your idea is good or bad. A far better strategy is to get existing councilors to take up different issues or take a different stance based on changing public attitudes.

 

What you are trying to do is shut down the issue with truth suppression technique number 12...http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html

 

It's a put your money/time/effort where you mouth is thing isn't it. If you feel strongly enough about local politics, do something about it.

 

That's my intention. I might not be able to get elected but I can campaign on the issue and do advocacy work. That's exactly what this thread is.

 

I have contacted politicians, councilors, regulators and watchdogs. I have created content for websites, trawled through FOI requests, promoted issues and made new contacts amongst the people that share my concerns. What have you done to reduce the executive salaries in Sheffield City council?

 

This is just nonsense. Pipe dream economics. Which is why the council aren't behaving like this, they have to live in the real world.

 

Just listen to the absurd things you are saying. You are saying that making 1.3 million pounds worth of additional cuts in the same budget as £63m worth of other cuts is "nonsense" and a "pipe-dream" and "not in the real world"

 

What would the council have done if the government had said they were cutting Sheffield's financing by £64.3 million, instead of just the 63 million?

 

Again you are trying to dismiss our discussion of substantially reducing executive salaries within the Sheffield City Council by describing that idea as if it were ridiculous when it isn't.

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2015 at 22:18 ----------

 

Of course it's not a pointless comparison.

 

OK. It's not a pointless comparison if the goal is to get a Tory party candidate to stand in Sheffield and campaign on this issue. You go for it if you want to. The less of a Labour majority here the better for everybody. It will keep them on their toes at least.

 

Yes it was. You've altered your wording here slightly. You originally said:

 

I stand by both statements. Why would you "Expect" that it would be worse?

 

Unless you think that nobody earning less than £50,000 could ever do a job that currently pays £220,000 which is a very elitist position to hold. A lot of people earning £220k today were once earning £50k or less. They were the ones selected for promotion.

 

So you will train someone to do a job for a small percentage of what the current people earn? I just can't see it.

 

Allow me to indulge you.

 

You set an arbitrary target that is acceptable to the people of Sheffield. Say £100k maximum for the top five executives in 5 years and £50k maximum for everybody else in 10 years.

 

Assuming the top five people in the council refuse to take the pay cut, you offer their jobs to the remaining 32 executives for up to a £100k salary. For them this would actually be a pay rise. Yes it will be a more difficult job but in my experience people are often willing to actually take a pay cut for a more privileged or difficult position that will give them better career advancement opportunities.

 

Assuming five of the 32 are game, then you have five years to perform an orderly transition from one set of leaders to another. They will need to find replacements for themselves and learn the nuances of the more senior position during this time.

 

That leaves 27 executives. Assuming none of them are willing to take a pay cut (for some this may only be £7k a year) then their job for the next ten years is to train at least two of their subordinates to do their job. These two candidates can be combined with applicants in the private sector or elsewhere.

 

People come and go all the time. Many of those 37 may be retiring in the next ten years anyway. Targets like these will help make sure nobody is recruited to replace them unless they are willing to do a very difficult job more for the love of the job than for the money.

 

If my company owners said, right do some training, then if you are better than the current one, we'll pay you a third of his salary, I'll tell them to **** off!

 

Well where I work they say, "Hey You, business is hard. You're now doing her job, his job and hers over there. Obviously we're still not going to pay you any more. Make sure you get it done or you're out on your arse. Good luck!"

Edited March 11, 2015 by rinzwind

[Anna B]

*_ashe_*

I looked at a few councils, and in London was quite surprised myself that there are hundreds who earn more than the PM. (however, it's not a great comparison guide, as the PM isn't doing the job for big money)

 

I can't defend a council that can't even work out my council tax bill, even after I sent them the Maths, and what they had got wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

These enormous pay deals for executives began in the private sector, where execs took it in turn to vote one another huge salaries many many times in excess of the average workers pay. They used to be considered outrageous but have now become so standard, that people are no longer shocked.

 

Now as long as the shareholders agree, it's entirely up to them to decide what they think the company can afford to pay and that pay comes out of company profits. And hopefully share holders will also benefit with shareprices rising - if they don't the CEO will be out on his ear.

 

The problem is the public sector thought they would use the private sector as a guide as to what they were worth, and we heard the mantra 'This is what they pay in the private sector' as if that was some sort of justification for them to receive the same.

 

But it's not.

 

The public sector's pay does not fluctuate with profits, it comes directly from the public purse; - taxes, council tax, grants etc. It does not make profits, and there is no stockmarket to measure specific levels of success. The job is relatively secure. They are public servants.

 

This is how we got into this spiral of rising public sector pay at the top, not, you'll notice, further down the foood chain, where some workers are lucky to get minimum wage, and have undergone pay cuts and pay freezes etc.

But then they don't have the luxury of paying themselves what they think they are worth. If they did can you imagine the result? One law for the rich and another for the rest.

 

Instead they have to suffer the growing gap between rich and poor, and are becoming priced out of whole areas of society that they used to be able to belong to. The gap has to be narrowed again and sanity returned.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Anna B

[Longcol]

 

 

Assuming the top five people in the council refuse to take the pay cut, you offer their jobs to the remaining 32 executives for up to a £100k salary. For them this would actually be a pay rise. Yes it will be a more difficult job but in my experience people are often willing to actually take a pay cut for a more privileged or difficult position that will give them better career advancement opportunities.

 

Assuming five of the 32 are game, then you have five years to perform an orderly transition from one set of leaders to another. They will need to find replacements for themselves and learn the nuances of the more senior position during this time.

 

That leaves 27 executives. Assuming none of them are willing to take a pay cut (for some this may only be £7k a year) then their job for the next ten years is to train at least two of their subordinates to do their job. These two candidates can be combined with applicants in the private sector or elsewhere

 

 

What exactly is your experience? Doesn't look like you've any of managing in an organisation of any size.

 

People take pay cuts for more difficult jobs?

 

We should pay executives for ten years to train two staff? After all the moaning you've been doing about executives being overpaid you want to make their job a lot easier

Edited March 11, 2015 by Longcol

[rinzwind]

What exactly is your experience? Doesn't look like you've any of managing in an organisation of any size.

 

My experience is a rise in council tax. I don't need any more experience than that to suggest replacing the senior management of the council.

 

Are you saying organizations can't replace managers? I think you will find they can and they do.

 

People take pay cuts for more difficult jobs?

 

All the time, yes. Sometimes they call it "downsizing"

 

We should pay executives for ten years to train two staff? After all the moaning you've been doing about executives being overpaid you want to make their job a lot easier

 

No, we should pay executives to do their what is already their job. In addition to their other duties, part of that job includes making sure a replacement is available immediately should they suddenly become unable to work. I would like to think our best and brightest would have already made sure there was a new generation of leaders in place to take over the running of this city should they all suddenly die of food poisoning.

 

...are you saying they haven't done that already?

[Longcol]

My experience is a rise in council tax. I don't need any more experience than that to suggest replacing the senior management of the council.

 

Are you saying organizations can't replace managers? I think you will find they can and they do.

 

 

 

All the time, yes. Sometimes they call it "downsizing"

 

 

 

No, we should pay executives to do their what is already their job. In addition to their other duties, part of that job includes making sure a replacement is available immediately should they suddenly become unable to work. I would like to think our best and brightest would have already made sure there was a new generation of leaders in place to take over the running of this city should they all suddenly die of food poisoning.

 

...are you saying they haven't done that already?

 

So you have no experience - pretty obvious.

 

You're wrong about "downsizing" - that's taking a pay cut for a job with less responsibility - not more.

 

And transitions should be a matter of months rather than 5 or 10 years (they are - even in the public sector). You're kind of implying our executives (who you've made clear you don't think are up to much) should be responsible for training the next generation (and presumably passing on the errors of their ways).

 

Why not just recruit from outside?

[*_ash_*]

OK. It's not a pointless comparison if the goal is to get a Tory party candidate to stand in Sheffield and campaign on this issue. You go for it if you want to. The less of a Labour majority here the better for everybody. It will keep them on their toes at least.

 

 

I stand by both statements. Why would you "Expect" that it would be worse?

 

Unless you think that nobody earning less than £50,000 could ever do a job that currently pays £220,000 which is a very elitist position to hold. A lot of people earning £220k today were once earning £50k or less. They were the ones selected for promotion.

 

You've almost answered this top quote here yourself with the next bit, when you agree it's not a pointless comparison. By looking at other figures around the country, if this city is paying the 'going rate', then that's what it is.

 

We could argue that the 'going rate' is higher than we think it should be, of course... (I think for me to decide I would have to spend a week at work with them to see what they do)

 

-

 

however, this here what you have written below, and similarly what Anna wrote in the following quote (sorry, I've made a right arse up of the quotes ) would probably have to be nationwide rather than local. It's a big overhaul.

 

Allow me to indulge you.

 

You set an arbitrary target that is acceptable to the people of Sheffield. Say £100k maximum for the top five executives in 5 years and £50k maximum for everybody else in 10 years. <snipped>

 

-

 

Well where I work they say, "Hey You, business is hard. You're now doing her job, his job and hers over there. Obviously we're still not going to pay you any more. Make sure you get it done or you're out on your arse. Good luck!"

 

bold: Of course, it's the same everywhere. I get asked to do things and I get on with them, but being in charge of something as big as running a city is something else. If they asked me to run the company for a couple of weeks while the manager was away, I'd do it, and they'd most probably pay me some more, but it doesn't mean I want that job all the time, and in particular for less money than my manager.

 

-

 

I looked at a few councils, and in London was quite surprised myself that there are hundreds who earn more than the PM. (however, it's not a great comparison guide, as the PM isn't doing the job for big money)

 

I can't defend a council that can't even work out my council tax bill, even after I sent them the Maths, and what they had got wrong

 

 

These enormous pay deals for executives began in the private sector, where execs took it in turn to vote one another huge salaries many many times in excess of the average workers pay. They used to be considered outrageous but have now become so standard, that people are no longer shocked.

 

bold: You'd have to fill me in on that.

 

The problem is the public sector thought they would use the private sector as a guide as to what they were worth, and we heard the mantra 'This is what they pay in the private sector' as if that was some sort of justification for them to receive the same.

 

That sounds obvious though. To me that sounds like they weren't getting the people that they wanted because the people they wanted would rather get more money in private sector. This is also why I don't necessarily think the MPs or PM are particularly highly paid when the argument is generally about all their 'private educations' etc. What are MPs on now? £70K ish? That's more than I'll ever earn, but I don't consider it a great wage.

 

But it's not.

 

The public sector's pay does not fluctuate with profits, it comes directly from the public purse; - taxes, council tax, grants etc. It does not make profits, and there is no stockmarket to measure specific levels of success. The job is relatively secure. They are public servants.

 

That's why private companies often offer bonuses rather than massive wages (please don't mention bankers, I mean the other 99.9% of private companies).

 

Do you think public servants should have the same? I couldn't see it going down very well!

 

Someone might get a bonus for turning a city around, then the far-left bloggers will just find a drunk in the street, photograph them, and put their headline as 'CITY CHIEFS MASSIVE BONUSES WHILE THIS MAN STARVES'. See it all the time.

 

Hopefully my quoting is ok, but tbh, I think we could all have been more succinct and just suggested this, that Longcol wrote...

 

 

Why not just recruit from outside?