FoxyPV Posted 18 November 2011 Posted 18 November 2011 Meh. Our chief exec just got a pay bump and is now up £150k plus expenses which, all in would total over £200k. He gets this for presiding over a company that was nailed to wall last year after the freeze, trying to cut the men on the ground in spite of the recommendations that more are actually needed and a complete inability to get the fittings needed to carry out repairs!!! I wish I was at executive level - well rewarded when you do well and when you completely fuck up.
nuttytimmy Posted 18 November 2011 Posted 18 November 2011 In my opinion , all politicians and businessmen alike bleet on about how we live in 'austere' times. In theory , thier only interested in lining thier own pockets. I ve just had to book the 30th of this month off because my sons school is striking. Apparently 35k a year, 14 weeks holiday and a final salary scheme isnt enough. I'd like to meet a classroom teacher on £35k!! The teachers on that sort of salary will have extra responsibilities in senior management or in pastoral care and would get more in a privatised system for the effort they put in. Most of us make do on £21k (for a Newly Qualified Teacher) to £26k (for someone who has been teaching five years but isn't 'post-threshold'), which granted is a fair salary BUT we work excessive hours. It's a bigger job than just 8am-3pm, with after school clubs to run, books to mark and lessons to plan. It doesn't all happen magically! I know of many teachers - including myself - who get up in the morning, get to school for before 8am to plan/last minute mark, teach five lessons with little breaks - maybe five minutes to pop to the loo at break and ten to grab a sandwich at lunch - before going home and spending the evening in front of the computer, with a pile of books or with scissors and glue creating resources for the Little Darlings. Yeah, we get 14 weeks' holidays - which we again work through, marking coursework or again planning lessons mostly - but we need them so that we can recharge our batteries after a non-stop seven or eight week half term. I think we deserve a decent pension and a fair wage for our hard work and we have already seen a three-year pay freeze, amongst other cuts, that are making teachers feel the squeeze as much as anyone else. To the OP: it is unfair to see politicians handed obscene pay rises in the face of cuts to the very services they are in charge of, but Soulsby looks to have done the proper thing in raising the issue for debate.
Wherethefoxhat? Posted 18 November 2011 Posted 18 November 2011 http://www.thisislei...tail/story.html Im not much for politics and all that shite but this HAS to be a fcuking joke surely??? How can ANYONE justify it when the country is in the shit He and his bloody Labour cronies are a fecking disgrace !!! Grrrrrrrrr
mick47 Posted 18 November 2011 Posted 18 November 2011 100k too much? suppose it depends what you compare it with and how it compares with what you earn. Supermarket checkout 12k Clerical worker 17k Dustman 20k Tradesman 25k Teacher 35k Doctor £100k College principle £100k Premiership striker 4.2m The workers in the lower pay bracket may well be outraged at the mayor getting 2 grand a week The MD and the principle may think its about right. The striker won't give a shit because he does'nt live in any of those worlds,. I fit somewhere in the middle of that list and I know who I think is not worth the money.
Rincewind Posted 18 November 2011 Posted 18 November 2011 I was told that £5 was too much to spend each day and had to cut down cos I wasn't getting anymore. Maybe the mayor and other top earners should do the same. Cut out lunch at Harrods a couple of times a week and shop at Marks instead of Selfidges. Then they could just about cope with 2k per week.
davieG Posted 19 November 2011 Posted 19 November 2011 Panel Sacked Merc Leicester's elected mayor Peter Soulsby has sacked a panel which recommended he get a £44,000-a-year pay rise. The non-political body, which proposed the rise as part of a wider review of the city council, had been criticised for not being fully independent. Sir Peter said it had made fundamental costing mistakes and another panel would be appointed. But outgoing chairman Martin Traynor stood by their work and said a new panel would reach the same findings. The panel also included Dominic Shellard, vice chancellor of De Montfort University; businessman Mike Kapur and Pat Zadora, who works in the charity sector in Derbyshire. Independence defendedThe report which, along with the pay rise, recommended scrapping the role of Lord Mayor and cutting the number of councillors while raising their allowances, was leaked earlier this week. Sir Peter, would is currently paid £56,000 a year, said that once he had time to study it, he found its conclusions would lead to "totally unacceptable" extra costs of up to £200,000. He added: "They are wrong about cutting the number of councillors because we need them to represent the people and hold me to account. "They have got it wrong about abolishing the role of Lord Mayor because that is a vital part of the history and tradition of this city. "And frankly they have got it wrong about the overall costs of their proposals." He said he would look outside the area for another panel or organisation to reexamine the issues. Mr Traynor, from the Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce, said the committee had used widely recognised methods and had reached its conclusions independently.
Rincewind Posted 19 November 2011 Posted 19 November 2011 He either thinks the pay rise would harm his reputation or doesnt think its enough. Am I being Cynical? Although since becoming Mayor he has been active within the community and is always willing to talk with and back Citizens Eye
Finnegan Posted 19 November 2011 Posted 19 November 2011 He's sacked them because it's caused public outcry after the information was leaked.
accessory Posted 19 November 2011 Posted 19 November 2011 In fairness to Soulsby, he's saved several times that amount in ousting overpaid unnecessary management in the City Council. The difference is that he's elected, they are not. But the election of a mayor cost the council over £600k - so he's still to deliver value for money. Large salaries in the public sector (particularly councils) is a MASSIVE bug bear of mine - but I'm actually with Soulsby on this one.Plus, he hasn't accepted it yet - it was the result of an independent review. But who commissioned that review in the first place? And how much did it cost? I doubt the panel would have conducted their findings for free. It's a massive own goal by politicians seeking to feather their own nests while in the real world, unemployment is at its highest in decades and there are areas of Leicester where children miss school because their parents are too poor to buy them a pair of shoes.
Zingari Posted 19 November 2011 Posted 19 November 2011 So this panel was formed to make recommendations about pay structure and it’s made them? And now they’ve been sacked? Will they keep appointing panels until they get the pay structure they want? What was this panel going to do after it put forward its recommendations anyway? Was it going to be a roving panel of mayoral pay structure experts ? Not for the first time in my life I’m very confused
Trav Le Bleu Posted 19 November 2011 Posted 19 November 2011 Panel Sacked Merc Leicester's elected mayor Peter Soulsby has sacked a panel which recommended he get a £44,000-a-year pay rise. The non-political body, which proposed the rise as part of a wider review of the city council, had been criticised for not being fully independent. Sir Peter said it had made fundamental costing mistakes and another panel would be appointed. But outgoing chairman Martin Traynor stood by their work and said a new panel would reach the same findings. The panel also included Dominic Shellard, vice chancellor of De Montfort University; businessman Mike Kapur and Pat Zadora, who works in the charity sector in Derbyshire. Independence defendedThe report which, along with the pay rise, recommended scrapping the role of Lord Mayor and cutting the number of councillors while raising their allowances, was leaked earlier this week. Sir Peter, would is currently paid £56,000 a year, said that once he had time to study it, he found its conclusions would lead to "totally unacceptable" extra costs of up to £200,000. He added: "They are wrong about cutting the number of councillors because we need them to represent the people and hold me to account. "They have got it wrong about abolishing the role of Lord Mayor because that is a vital part of the history and tradition of this city. "And frankly they have got it wrong about the overall costs of their proposals." He said he would look outside the area for another panel or organisation to reexamine the issues. Mr Traynor, from the Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce, said the committee had used widely recognised methods and had reached its conclusions independently. Sack the journalist!
Trav Le Bleu Posted 19 November 2011 Posted 19 November 2011 So this panel was formed to make recommendations about pay structure and it’s made them? And now they’ve been sacked? Will they keep appointing panels until they get the pay structure they want? What was this panel going to do after it put forward its recommendations anyway? Was it going to be a roving panel of mayoral pay structure experts ? Not for the first time in my life I’m very confused Yes, it does pose the paradox that this panel got it wrong, which suggests that they knew what the right answer was... so why appoint a panel?
Saxondale Posted 19 November 2011 Posted 19 November 2011 So this panel was formed to make recommendations about pay structure and it’s made them? And now they’ve been sacked? Will they keep appointing panels until they get the pay structure they want? What was this panel going to do after it put forward its recommendations anyway? Was it going to be a roving panel of mayoral pay structure experts ? Not for the first time in my life I’m very confused It is all very weird isn't it. Soulsby has been put in a weird position whereby he has to publicly come out and say "actually, I'm not worth what this independent panel's research concludes, please pay me less money" You would have thought this would have all been sorted before anybody got elected!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.