Forum menu
https://order-order.com/2017/04/11/fat-cats-gallery-council-bosses-cost-millions/
Follow the links through to see the extent of the greed.
As one example Sunderland City Council paid 3 of it's directors in excess of £1.6million - in one year.
There will be at least one of these hard working executives at a council near you; make sure you send them a congratulatory email for screwing such wonderful salaries for themselves while continuing to cut services, increase council taxes and limit pay rises for the majority of their staff to 1% at best.
The public sector at it's finest.
I don't work in the sector but delivered a short term contract for Northumberland County Council - and that gave me a clear insight into the disparity between those who deliver and those who claim to manage......and it stinks.
Bear in mind those figures are renumeration packages and include pension payments, relocation allowance and redundancies and are not annual salaries as such.
See Rotten Burghers in Private Eye
@riddoch: to stick with Sunderland the costs do not include redundancy payments - redundancy applies to the job, not the person doing it so unless the council have dispensed with the roles of chief exec and finance director redundancy would not apply.
Why would the council agree to pay more that £330k in 'future' pension contributions to a departing chief exec who would, almost certainly, take up another role elsewhere
It's also worth noting that finance director was an interim and any form of redundancy payment to an interim would be questionable from a legal perspective - unless it was dressed up as an ex gratia payment but even that would need approval by the council's elected members.
Relocation expenses? A few thousands at most; Sunderland is not a high cost area there would be little if any mortgage support.
As for Rotten Boroughs in the Eye - keep up the good work chaps; for those who don't read the Eye, pop into Smiths and read the Rotten Boroughs page - published every fortnight and each edition exposes yet more that the public sector would prefer us not to know.
Bear in mind those figures are renumeration packages and include pension payments, relocation allowance and redundancies and are not annual salaries as such.
be grateful if you'd explain how that works please. i can see that pension contributions would be ongoing costs, but relocation and redundancy? not taking the piss, just curious.
How much would you do the job for?
£60k
well there's a chief exec of a council local to me taking home 3x what the PM gets paid. do you think that's appropriate from the public purse? clearly we need the brightest and the best, but as above, when the rank and file are getting 1% over 2 years, on top of **** all for the past 10, it doesn't really seem right, does it?
No.
The brightest and the best are needed in middle management, not at the top.
Having recently left the public sector and joined a large, private sector company via a stint in the gig economy I can confirm that all three are equally incompetently managed and none of the people at the top deserve what they earn. I hope that helps.
I honestly don't think the execs at the top of councils do a good job at all. They don't understand how to use money wisely, and almost EVERY move they make is politically motivated and self serving.
What can we do as humble citizens? Pay the £400 council tax rise or else, that's what!
The execs at the top of councils are politically motivated because they work for councillors. That's the main problem with local government in my experience...
I don't work in the sector but delivered a short term contract for Northumberland County Council - and that gave me a clear insight into the disparity between those who deliver and those who claim to manage......and it stinks.
I hope you didn't charge much for your short term contract 🙂
@garym: i went through a normal interview process - unlike a mate of the chief exec who was appointed as an interim to a role which was not advertised and for which he was not interviewed.
He refused to accept any reporting relationship to his head of function - insisting that he reported only to the chief exec.
And he was expensive for what he appeared to deliver.
What can we do as humble citizens? Pay the £400 council tax rise or else, that's what!
Or, you can get active, and make sure they know that every move, and every brass bawbee they miss appropriate will be accountable, this fat bastard knows his days are numbered, and some of us won't rest until he's one of Essels guests
There will be at least one of these hard working executives at a council near you; make sure you send them a congratulatory email for screwing such wonderful salaries for themselves while continuing to cut services, increase council taxes and limit pay rises for the majority of their staff to 1% at best.
Let's say you could find a senior management team that was competent and prepared to work for a much lower salary. What impact do you think that would have on the council's total budget?
well there's a chief exec of a council local to me taking home 3x what the PM gets paid. do you think that's appropriate from the public purse?
The whole comparison with the PM is almost always nonsensical. Given that the PM stuff never allows for a house in the middle of London, a weekend retreat in the country, pension benefits that one could only dream of, and contacts that will allow huge sums to be earned on leaving the post.
For the record, the council got the £300000 back, and Asons went in to recievership, to be bought by another of the Akram brothers.
I see Paul Staines (Guido Fawkes) is helping the conservatives to place the blame for reduction in services on local government and not on the reduction in funding from his friends in the government...
I imagine like every organisations there will be those under and over paid for the contribution they make.
Northern Powerhouse, innit.
Good point re private sector up there mind.
Our CEO has just retired, and excluding salary and whatever he got as a pay off and pension, he has amassed over 38 million shares in the company.
They are at £16 per share at present.
Grotesque.
This will be a mere drop in the ocean compared to all the untwinning that is to come...
Untwinning, the horror.
OP it is indeed a disgrace. The campaign group Tax Payers Alliance have been focusing on this too.
I see absolutely no reason at all that a public servant is paid more than the PM
@garym: i went through a normal interview process - unlike a mate of the chief exec who was appointed as an interim to a role which was not advertised and for which he was not interviewed.
The old distraction technique. He didn't ask if you were interviewed or about your 'mate'.
jambalaya - MemberOP it is indeed a disgrace. The campaign group Tax Payers Alliance have been focusing on this too.
Oh right... they're a 'Campaign Group' are they? I always got the impression they were a just a bunch of typically sociopathic Tory's, perpetually whining that they have to pay any tax at all?
I mean, if we just killed the disabled (its not like they contribute anything, is it?), and left the poor to cope for themselves (it would teach them a lesson in self-sufficiency - they should be thanking us!), and as we all know if you can't afford private education and healthcare, its probably Gods way of telling you you don't deserve it. Like natural selection.
And infrastructure just magically builds and maintains itself. Obvs!
I see absolutely no reason at all that a public servant is paid more than the PM
But I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you also think its absolutely fine that the CEO of a private company, even one who is ****ing hopeless, is paid the same annually as the GDP of Spain?
jambalaya - Member
OP it is indeed a disgrace. The campaign group Tax Payers Alliance have been focusing on this too.I see absolutely no reason at all that a public servant is paid more than the PM
Okay, but why not extend that to there being no reason [i]anybody [/i]is paid more than the PM?
Surrey CC top exec team likewise £1m.
Top Chief Executive guy David McNulty, £220,295
Yes that's salary + allowances. That wouldn't include pension and redundancy payoff figures.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/seven-surrey-county-council-bosses-12495399
Also read he's due a £100k bonus on top.
Not sure what the leader David Hodge (of the 15% tax rise fame) is on. Can't find figures at the moment for that, though he has a £40k allowance on top apparently.
Surrey CC County Hall isn't even in Surrey administrative area, it's in London. Explains why they haven't a clue about what goes on in the county they administer.
I see absolutely no reason at all that a public servant is paid more than the PM
The PM's salary is meaningless.
A lot of them were wealthy before taking office and their earning capacity after holding the office, even if they do a completely shit job, is massive. Even their pension provision is nonsense compared to what they earn after leaving. You could do the job for 4 years on minimum wage and still be multi millionaires a few years after.
@retro the PM is the top public servant with the most responsible job - that should be the too paying job. As a matter of fact I think the ON should be paid more but no civil servant should make more
"Surrey CC top exec team likewise £1m.
Top Chief Executive guy David McNulty, £220,295"
Am I alone in thinking that's not high? You'd have to pay an Engineer half that in my industry.
[i]I see absolutely no reason at all that a public servant is paid more than the PM [/I]
Totally disagree, I want to right folk for the job. I do realise that just 'cos there's good money it doesn't mean that you'll get a good person, but that's the same for anywhere).
I also thought you believed in 'market' forces?
And does your sentiment also apply to such as when the banks were supported by the taxpayer - would have been a fair few upset employees/Managers/Directors I reckon.
The problem with many in public service is they don't understand the difference between having a big budget and running a business of the same size. I meet people who think that because they run a big team and budget, it somehow means they think they could run a similar-sized business. There's no accountability either - cock-up in public service and they'll shuffle you off to another department where you can continue to accrue a healthy pension at the tax-payers expense. The 'peter principle' still applies in the Civil Service and where prevarication and not making a decision (under the euphemism or not spending money)is simply kicking the can down the road...
Town Cat?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/791058/Council-cat-Tewkesbury-Town-Council-Gloucestershire
And does your sentiment also apply to such as when the banks were supported by the taxpayer - would have been a fair few upset employees/Managers/Directors I reckon
Plus what about all those companies which make a good part of their living from public contracts. Should we be restricting the likes of crapita.
matt_outandabout - Member
Town Cat?
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/791058/Council-cat-Tewkesbury-Town-Council-Gloucestershire
"An office is somewhere for business to be transacted and we don't need a cat around
Karen Brennan"
Says the mayor who looks like is wearing cat fur anyway.
I see absolutely no reason at all that a public servant is paid more than the PM
Just in case we forget - just as she already has, the PM is our servant. She is meant to work for us.
The right wing press loves to trot out stories about public sector 'fat cat' pay when people start to question why their council tax bills have increased.
Funny how they neglect to mention the effect of cuts from central government funding, isn't it? It's also funny how they never mention the public money spent on corporate welfare...
Del - Memberwell there's a chief exec of a council local to me taking home 3x what the PM gets paid. do you think that's appropriate from the public purse?
It's a bit of a false comparison; an ex-PM has huge earning potential, and there's a lot of non-financial perks. Not to mention that they're all power-seeing mentalists, being top of the pile is its own reward.
Not that I'm saying the payment is right; I'm not sure either way. But it's definitely just a distraction tactic from the real impacts on council services and spending. A lot of people would be very happy to have us believe that the reason your library just closed is because of fat-cat public servants being paid a fortune.
A lot of people would be very happy to have us believe that the reason your library just closed is because of fat-cat public servants being paid a fortune.
Yep. This.
Also, if everyone paid their dues to the state correctly then we could all have access to libraries, social care and reasonable housing too. Those who continue to repeat the notion that we must slash public spending and force those on low incomes to fund their own healthcare, unemployment insurance, education and whatnot are fast running out of scapegoats.
I blame Gary Barlow
The campaign group Tax Payers Alliance have been focusing on this too.
Haha! If anyone tries to use a Think Tank to promote their point of view its always best to follow the money....Oh! They don't seem very open about who's pulling the string at the Tax Payers Alliance, I wonder why that is?!?
@drac & garym: my rate for delivering a short term contract was less than i would have earned for the same in the private sector. No distraction technique in use.
@pjm: councils have significant assets which they could use to generate revenue - without getting into large scale sales. It's not all about cuts; there are sugnificant commercial opportunities which they could develop - if they could be bothered.
It's very easy - and lazy - to be myopic and focus exclusively on funding cuts.
My original point still stands - too many council execs are grossly overpaid; reduced salaries and benefits would free up some £ to be spent more appropriately - every little helps.....
@ratnips: TPA funding is irrelevant.
TPA funding is irrelevant.
Of course it is. Is that the same as the union funding of the Labour party being irrelevant? And thats why the right wing press never mention it? 😆