Sheffield City Council meeting - An important Invitation

[rinzwind]

So you have no experience - pretty obvious.

 

Experience of what? Recruiting people with John Mothersole's experience has lead to a dysfunctional council. Perhaps his wasn't the right experience to have anyway.

 

If you have a criticism of the proposal then make that criticism of the proposal. I am not the proposal. I have just voiced it. My experience is irrelevant to it.

 

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

 

No I am not wrong. Regardless of what you call it, the majority of Sheffield people know that when times are hard, their boss won't think twice about dumping a load of extra work on their desk for no extra money.

 

And transitions should be a matter of months rather than 5 or 10 years (they are - even in the public sector).

 

So getting there in 10 years should be a piece of cake. Are you suggesting that if we do reduce the outrageous salaries in this manner, then we should be aiming to do it much quicker?

 

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).

 

The one mistake they won't inherit is presuming they can get away with obscene salaries. The next generation should be trained the same way they are today. Through universities and via on the job training within the department or a similar department.

 

If you are suggesting there is a different way to train a council executive then we are all ears.

 

Why not just recruit from outside?

 

We should certainly be willing to do that too. You can't have too many prospective candidates. I honestly don't think finding suitable candidates who are willing to work for less than £50k a year will be difficult.

 

There is no justification for these high salaries that stands up to any kind of scrutiny.

Edited March 12, 2015 by rinzwind

[*_ash_*]

I honestly don't think finding suitable candidates who are willing to work for less than £50k a year will be difficult.

 

There is no justification for these high salaries that stands up to any kind of scrutiny.

 

bold: I think this is the part where it borders on problematic.

 

Up north, perhaps, but down south that's not a good wage for doing something that you could earn far more in private. If the pay is comparable around the country as I think we have established it is, then what incentive is there to stay here?

 

Why do you think London is a magnet for people? It's not because it's nice FFS! I'd much rather be up here

 

Let's say we found several Mr or Ms A's who do a fantastic job in Northern City. Southern places who offer nearly 6 times more money for the same job, will go straight for those people (headhunting). And they'll tempt some of them. So who replaces the ones that go for it?

Edited March 12, 2015 by *_ash_*
added for clarity

[Cyclone]

Experience of what? Recruiting people with John Mothersole's experience has lead to a dysfunctional council. Perhaps his wasn't the right experience to have anyway.

 

If you have a criticism of the proposal then make that criticism of the proposal. I am not the proposal. I have just voiced it. My experience is irrelevant to it.

You think you can set what budget will attract people to these jobs. The criticism is that you're wrong, and that the budget you've suggested will result in either unfilled positions, or inappropriate people in the jobs.

We should certainly be willing to do that too. You can't have too many prospective candidates. I honestly don't think finding suitable candidates who are willing to work for less than £50k a year will be difficult.

Finding ones capable of doing the job for that money will though.

 

There is no justification for these high salaries that stands up to any kind of scrutiny.

 

There is, you just don't want there to be.

[tzijlstra]

Ah, that old chestnut again.

 

How many people does the council employ? Anybody? Nobody? Shall we call it "over 15,000".

 

So, let's put someone in charge who has no experience of running a company with 15,000 people. Don't worry it will be absolutely fine. We will give him a support cast of people who have no experience managing to this scale either and let it all be influenced by a bunch of local councillors who only work for their own political agenda (rightly so).

 

Not a recipe for disaster at all! Plus, if we only pay them 100K a year, we won't have to pay them massive buy-out clauses when the mess starts to unravel.

 

/sarcasm

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2015 at 08:20 ----------

 

Experience of what? Recruiting people with John Mothersole's experience has lead to a dysfunctional council. Perhaps his wasn't the right experience to have anyway.

 

Sorry, how has Mothersole's position got anything to do with a dysfunctional council? Also, which part is dysfunctional?

[newcomer01]

Regardless of any inflated salaries outs side this area is irrelevant .The fact that there are salaries being paid to a large number of public servants that cannot be justified.But more importantly how it has been arrived that the salaries previously depicited are acceptable and good value.

 

I see this type of thought similar to how Banks once offered inflated salaries and bonus to obtain the best in their industry.We can all see how that worked out.

 

People being head hunted is hardly the criteria as you are always going to get this happening.

 

Replacement to leavers mostly has been successful from promoting from within .So offering inflated salaries to get the right person is not credible.

To my experience ,working in the public service has always meant being paid more that in the private sector.

 

Whilst the salaries of the few have been well and truly aired on this forum,I am not quite sure if the bulk of Sheffield Taxpayers are aware .It would be nice to see how they would react to such salaries whilst paying for reduced services ,austerity whilst the fat cats escape with impunity

[Mr Bloom]

 

I see this type of thought similar to how Banks once offered inflated salaries and bonus to obtain the best in their industry.We can all see how that worked out.

 

 

Once offered? You mean, still throw at, surely?

[Cyclone]

Regardless of any inflated salaries outs side this area is irrelevant .The fact that there are salaries being paid to a large number of public servants that cannot be justified.But more importantly how it has been arrived that the salaries previously depicited are acceptable and good value.

 

I see this type of thought similar to how Banks once offered inflated salaries and bonus to obtain the best in their industry.We can all see how that worked out.

 

People being head hunted is hardly the criteria as you are always going to get this happening.

 

Replacement to leavers mostly has been successful from promoting from within .So offering inflated salaries to get the right person is not credible.

To my experience ,working in the public service has always meant being paid more that in the private sector.

 

Whilst the salaries of the few have been well and truly aired on this forum,I am not quite sure if the bulk of Sheffield Taxpayers are aware .It would be nice to see how they would react to such salaries whilst paying for reduced services ,austerity whilst the fat cats escape with impunity

 

On what basis do you say they can't be justified?

The salaries are not inflated, they're generally less than someone would get in the private sector for a similar level position.

[newcomer01]

Not sure that this thread is about what I can or cannot prove really is it! If you are aware that there are such people about ,please be kind enough to pass on the info.Having worked at a number of companies,to my recollection I was not aware of the company M/D being on such a salary.Though this was a considrably smaller company than the SCC.Come to think of it,I am not sure that I know of any similar sized company

[rinzwind]

I honestly don't think finding suitable candidates who are willing to work for less than £50k a year will be difficult.

 

bold: I think this is the part where it borders on problematic.

 

The two main objections seem to be (a) we would have difficulty recruiting the executives and (b) we would have difficulty retaining the executives.

 

My view is that;

 

(a) The only people we will have difficulty recruiting are those who's salary demands are unreasonable. More suitable people don't get promoted up the hierarchy than do so companies and organisations are awash with competent people. Senior positions are very scarce. People are willing to work very hard for a chance at a senior position. Often suitable people are not promoted for ideological reasons. Often the people who are promoted are not actually the most suitable.

 

(b) The only people we will have difficulty retaining are those people that care more about their own wallets than they do about Sheffield. They are exactly the kind of people we want to avoid. New executives should be selected in large part based on a genuine commitment to Sheffield. Suitable candidates wouldn't want to give up a senior position in Sheffield's Council unless it was good for the city to do so. Various incentives to stick around can also be woven in to any contract.

 

Furthermore the more Sheffielders that gain £50k salaries within the city and then get headhunted for even higher paid executive roles elsewhere, the better. That is what our education system is all about.

 

A modest staff turnover is already expected by the council. How much higher do you expect it would be in those 37 executive roles and why do you think that?

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2015 at 21:59 ----------

 

The criticism is that you're wrong, and that the budget you've suggested will result in either unfilled positions, or inappropriate people in the jobs.

 

We already have inappropriate people in the jobs.

 

You have no way of determining what the outcome of a recruitment campaign would be in advance. The manner it was conducted would influence the outcome.

 

Finding ones capable of doing the job for that money will though.

 

Again you don't know what you will find until you look. I expect they will find an abundance of dedicated and intelligent people. I think that the greatest natural resource in Sheffield is it's people.

 

Also the existing leadership are incapable of doing the job and cost us a lot more.

Edited March 12, 2015 by rinzwind

[*_ash_*]

In red, because short of time...

 

The two main objections seem to be (a) we would have difficulty recruiting the executives and (b) we would have difficulty retaining the executives.

 

My view is that;

 

(a) The only people we will have difficulty recruiting are those who's salary demands are unreasonable. More suitable people don't get promoted up the hierarchy than do so companies and organisations are awash with competent people. Senior positions are very scarce. People are willing to work very hard for a chance at a senior position. Often suitable people are not promoted for ideological reasons. Often the people who are promoted are not actually the most suitable.

 

I think we established that these were the going rate though since it's across the country?

 

(b) The only people we will have difficulty retaining are those people that care more about their own wallets than they do about Sheffield. They are exactly the kind of people we want to avoid. New executives should be selected in large part based on a genuine commitment to Sheffield. Suitable candidates wouldn't want to give up a senior position in Sheffield's Council unless it was good for the city to do so. Various incentives to stick around can also be woven in to any contract.

 

bold, what are you basing this on though?

Underlined, Do you know they aren't now?

 

Furthermore the more Sheffielders that gain £50k salaries within the city and then get headhunted for even higher paid executive roles elsewhere, the better. That is what our education system is all about.

 

How will that help the city if people who are 'dedicated' and importantly, good! get head-hunted and go somewhere else for better money? We will just be an easy pickings ground for other places in the country. We would just be the part of the education system with no stability at all if jobs keep coming and going every time someone goes.

 

A modest staff turnover is already expected by the council. How much higher do you expect it would be in those 37 executive roles and why do you think that?

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2015 at 21:59 ----------

 

 

We already have inappropriate people in the jobs.

 

You have no way of determining what the outcome of a recruitment campaign would be in advance. The manner it was conducted would influence the outcome.

 

 

 

Again you don't know what you will find until you look. I expect they will find an abundance of dedicated and intelligent people. I think that the greatest natural resource in Sheffield is it's people.

 

Of course there are, they are in any town or city, but doesn't mean they could run the city. I suspect it isn't as easy as people make out. £50k is probably only 4 times more than someone working full-time on NMW. You might as well try and become a manager in a supermarket and earn the same for far less stress/hassle and responsibility for far fewer people

 

Also the existing leadership are incapable of doing the job and cost us a lot more.

 

How much do you know about what their day to day duties are? And what decisions have to be made? On page 1 you hadn't even established what they earned, let alone know what they do.

 

 

a few more characters...