Sheffield City Council meeting - An important Invitation

[Anna B]

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.

 

The private / public sector argument is a massive red herring.

 

The private sector works on a profit and loss basis, and pays according to company profits. The CEO / board members are held immediately accountable for any lack of success / profits, and will be replaced very quickly for failure.

In other words the job in the private sector is associated with risk. It is not using public money.

 

In the public sector there are no profits. Money is 'donated' by government and council tax payers. Lack of success results in a rise in council tax.

Therefore the public should decide on the renumeration of these public servants. People taking these jobs should know that, and not be looking for private sector salaries in public sector jobs.

[apelike]

The private / public sector argument is a massive red herring.

 

The private sector works on a profit and loss basis, and pays according to company profits. The CEO / board members are held immediately accountable for any lack of success / profits, and will be replaced very quickly for failure.

In other words the job in the private sector is associated with risk. It is not using public money.

 

In the public sector there are no profits. Money is 'donated' by government and council tax payers. Lack of success results in a rise in council tax.

Therefore the public should decide on the renumeration of these public servants. People taking these jobs should know that, and not be looking for private sector salaries in public sector jobs.

 

Well said, and it applies more so in Parliament where the MP's there seem to think they should be paid in line with the private sector.

[rinzwind]

You don't NEED any level of experience, but having some increases the likelihood of being right considerably.

 

Perhaps, but that still doesn't mean I am wrong. People can judge the merit of what I am saying for themselves.

 

I'm determined to have an opinion, which happens to be different to yours

 

Exactly.

 

and you're trying very hard to shout me down.

 

How is that?

 

Johnny5 mentioned it. He accused me of working for the council. Now you don't like it when I explain that I'm self employed? Perhaps you could try to actually read the thread and see the context of the responses?

 

I have read the thread. Being self employed does not preclude you from working as a troll for the council.

 

Let's see a cost benefit analysis of the IKM team. If trolls are working for the council, then I think they will be working for that team or hired by that team.

 

Mine? The tactic of disagreeing with you, and stating why. Reasons that you have (with no supporting logic) declared to be invalid.

 

Here is a comprehensive list of the objections you have provided in this thread followed by my counter argument. I have grouped your objections together in to categories of similar objections as they tend to overlap. Most of your objections can be answered by reading my lengthy reply to ash so some of the information here is a repetition of that post.

 

Well given that most of the list are planning decisions, and that it's councillors that ultimately make planning decisions.

 

Your confusing the councillors with the highly paid civil servants who work for the council.

 

These people are not members of the council of course, and are not putting our council tax up.

 

You mean we should vote for a representative and then let them get on with governing?

 

You are correct that the councilors bear ultimate responsibility for council decisions. However, I am challenging executive pay because....

 

(A) The councilors rely very heavily on advice from the civil service executives.

 

(B) The civil servants have considerable power to make life difficult for the councilors. This gives them influence over the councilors policies.

 

© Often problems are caused by the implementation of a decision rather than the decision itself.

 

(D) Feedback from civil servants helped the councilors develop their budget. The feedback regarding executive pay is IMO a deliberate and self serving error.

 

(E) The recommendation is that people contact their councilor and insist that these pay deals are renegotiated. Letting a councilor "get on with it" strips individuals of their rights to scrutinize their councilor once they are elected.

 

(F) The pay deals for executives should be reduced because they are not affordable. This would still be true even if the city executives had done a wonderful job.

 

Did you not understand the explanation about how that is a one off payment and would leave the council with a larger shortfall next year, and then the year after?

 

Pipe Dream Economics

 

(A) The difference between £63m worth of cuts and £64.3m worth of cuts is negligible. Therefore it is not pipe dream economics.

 

(B) Nobody knows what will happen with the economy next year. The budget as it stands is already based on optimistic guesses about the future. It is quite likely there will be a budget shortfall next year anyway. This is all the more reason why executive salaries should be slashed.

 

What makes you think that they'd happily keep on 5 managers when 2 would do, and make public service cuts likely to get them voted out at the next election?

 

Councils have had funding cut massively, what makes you think that they haven't made redundant everyone they can already?

 

(A) They could keep on 5 managers when 2 would do because the civil service has told them that they need 5 and that 2 won't do. The motivation for this advice could be based on a desire to keep their own jobs and high salaries rather than being based on the truth.

 

(B) You are suggesting that the policies of councilors are exactly right. I reject that assertion.

 

© I am not talking about redundancies but pay cuts. Even if they made redundant everybody possible, they can still cut executive pay.

 

You can't fill senior posts like these without paying an appropriate amount, unless of course you want to put someone under qualified in them who'll mess it up.

 

Why would they agree to reduce their salaries, they could probably leave and go to the private sector and earn more, leaving the council to backfill the positions, costing the same salary again, plus the cost of recruiting.

 

So you think these qualified and experienced past graduates, still in Sheffield, presumably in the private sector, would take over at a large pay cut for some of these council posts?

 

the budget you've suggested will result in either unfilled positions, or inappropriate people in the jobs.

 

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

 

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

 

(A) Anna has pointed out why the private sector comparison is not a fair comparison.

 

(B) I have explained that I think the talent pool in Sheffield is far greater than the number of executive positions. Finding suitable people who will do the job for that money will therefore not be difficult.

 

© I have also explained that people should be recruited based on their commitment to Sheffield, therefore reducing or eliminating the chance of them leaving for better paid positions elsewhere.

 

(D) I have explained that the executives are not capable of doing the job and cited dissatisfaction amongst Sheffielders as evidence.

 

(E) The executive salaries are too high anyway so if they do leave then this is a positive outcome. People would often rather take a pay cut than be sacked.

 

(F) What constitutes an "appropriate amount" changes with economic circumstances. The level of national debt and the austerity we are suffering reduces the amount that is "appropriate."

 

I think the only conclusion we can draw from this thread is that rinzwind has no experience or interaction with anyone working at this kind of level in any organisation anywhere.

 

Perhaps you should actually know whether we need them or not, before you form your opinion.

 

The idea that you can pay less and fill senior positions like this is propagated by people like you who don't know anything about positions at this level or what the private sector pay would be for an equivalent job.

 

(A) You don't know what you are talking about. You have no idea what level of experience I or others have. FYI, I do have relevant experience of interaction with council executives and also extensive experience of interacting with senior executives throughout the private sector.

 

(B) By your own admision, you have no experience yourself and therefore (according to you) you are unqualified to judge the merit of the proposal. Therefore your argument is internally inconsistent.

 

© While experience can sometimes be helpful it does not by itself determine if a proposition is valid.

 

(D) The people with the most experience have a vested interest in the outcome and are therefore unreliable.

 

(E) The experience of the executives has not provided outcomes that are acceptable to Sheffielders calling in to question the suitability of that experience.

 

(F) The council is required to provide enough information to the public for them to make informed choices without needing any experience.

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2015 at 17:41 ----------

 

In the public sector there are no profits. Money is 'donated' by government and council tax payers.

 

A donation is a voluntary act. I would argue that the money is not donated but stolen from many tax payers.

Edited March 16, 2015 by rinzwind

[Anna B]

It is a duty to pay council tax. And it is the council's duty to spend it wisely and in accordance with the public's wishes. I doubt that includes spending £3.3 million on the salaries of just 37 people.

[rinzwind]

It is a duty to pay council tax. And it is the council's duty to spend it wisely and in accordance with the public's wishes. I doubt that includes spending £3.3 million on the salaries of just 37 people.

 

This discussion deserves an entire thread of it's own. In brief I would call in to question your definition of taxation as a "duty"

 

Duty (noun) a moral or legal obligation.

 

1. There is no moral obligation to surrender your property when threatened with force.

 

2. Stealing is an immoral act. No law can justify an immoral act.

Edited March 16, 2015 by rinzwind

[Longcol]

This discussion deserves an entire thread of it's own. In brief I would call in to question your definition of taxation as a "duty"

 

 

In the case of Council Tax it is governed by the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

[Cyclone]

Your entire argument is based on wishful thinking. That's why I suggest that a lack of experience is more likely to make you wrong.

[Anna B]

Your entire argument is based on wishful thinking. That's why I suggest that a lack of experience is more likely to make you wrong.

 

What's wrong with a bit of wishful thinking?

 

Especially when the reality is so poor...

[Cyclone]

Nothing wrong with it, but it's of no help in a discussion about how to run a council in the real world.

[Anna B]

Nothing wrong with it, but it's of no help in a discussion about how to run a council in the real world.

 

Wishful thinking or 'aspirational thinking' or 'creative thinking' is where new and innovative ideas come from.

Something this council seems to be in dire need of...