Forum Topic

Council gives bonus to lower paid staff

Shame that the Private Sector cannot afford to do this in the current financial climate but hey ho its only public money afterall the Council are spending"Low paid council workers in Hounslow have received a welcome boost in their pay packets. Teaching assistants, care workers, dinner ladies and cleaners and are among more than 2,000 workers on low pay who received a one-off payment of up to £250. Cllr Steve Curran, cabinet member for education, housing and HR at the council, said: “The Government said low paid workers should receive extra money to help them with the rising costs of living, but failed to provide a penny to support this. “Council pay has been frozen for three years, but we think it’s important that those on low incomes, who are struggling with the rising costs of living, are supported. “Most of these people work in our schools, as teaching assistants, cleaners, caretakers, and dinner ladies, but there are also carers, school crossing patrols and travel assistants for children with special educational needs. “These people make such an important contribution to the lives of residents, and I pleased to say we are recognising this.” All council staff earning below a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 received the one-off payment for 2012-13. The payment was made, pro-rata for those working part-time, to all eligible staff at the end of June"

Paul Fisher ● 4782d50 Comments

Made me laugh that did!

Tony Wood ● 4766d

Or 'Very good' and 'No chance.'

Keith Iddon ● 4766d

"I would also like to know what terms and conditions on their pensions politicians have and whether they too will be less well off in their retirement."I think the answers to those two questions are "Good" and "No".http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/29/ministerial-public-sector-pensions

Tony Wood ● 4766d

I know the background George and I don't dispute that changes had to be made.I'm not overjoyed that the goalposts have been moved during  the game and the half that I and many others are playing in covers 3/4 of the pitch if you follow however, but I am a realist.I just wish that bankers and big wigs were forced to make the same type of adjustment.I would also like to know what terms and conditions on their pensions politicians have and whether they too will be less well off in their retirement.

Keith Iddon ● 4766d

"The terms of the pension pay out have also changed with regard to lump sums and age at which the pension can be taken.Needles to say the change is in favour of the employers."Keith on that particular point the change was brought in the Labour party and while incidentally employers may have benefited, the real issue behind the decision is that the Pension funds (and probably the security of jobs in their companies) are broke and we are living much longer. It was the right decision.The change just had to happen. It was not helped by that idiot Gordon Brown when he eliminated the tax credits and it was not helped by the stupidity of the previous inactive administration when companies decided to have pension holidays because the stock market was doing much better than now.

George Knox ● 4766d

These forums are for what you say amongst other things and there really is no need to get in such a huff.I merely asked you why you misquoted me and which comments you thought were silly.As for causing stress ,a much over used word imo, how can a forum like this be the source of stress?.Saying I don't know you from Adam is not supposed to be offensive btw.It is just a saying.With a couple of exceptions I have never met anyone on this forum so I don't know them from Adam either.I do not think for one minute that I am right in everything.But I don't misquote anyone.The best of luck to you also.

Keith Iddon ● 4767d

Neither I know you from Adam's time AND I don't want to know you now.  I thought this platform was about sharing general concerns for locals not for arguments. Life is too short to cause astress to someone unnecessary.If you think you are right in everything. Good Luck to you.

Satvir Sidhu ● 4767d

I think it's in the range of 5.5% for lower paid workers up to a max. of 7.5%.I may be out but I don't think by much.The amount the employer puts in varies as to how that particular  Authority has in its funds. The idea of having these pensions was to attract workers who could earn more in the private sector to provide essential public services and now that the goalposts have moved and working in the public sector is perceived as more attractive the private sector are not happy.Understandable you might say but they were quite happy to accept the status quo when they were doing well.There has been a lot of reform of working practises ,rightly so in many cases,and broadly speaking this started under Thatcher.The terms of the pension pay out have also changed with regard to lump sums and age at which the pension can be taken.Needles to say the change is in favour of the employers.To think that there is still a 'job for life' mentality amongst council workers is way off the mark.Most of them have seen colleagues leave and either have their duties spread around to others or have seen them replaced by agency staff.The Local Authority funds have also been well managed in relation to many of the get rich quick private pensions and the books are balanced as far as I know.

Keith Iddon ● 4767d

"The pension,btw, is contributory and the average pension for a local govn. officer is about £4,500"Indeed but what percentage of their salaries do Council Officers contribute towards their Final Salary Pension Schemes and what percentage does the taxpayer contribute for them?

Steve Taylor ● 4767d

'Keithyou are right i(sic)have lots of experience and knowledge'Where in my post do I say this? I merely said you seem to know something of the private sector and have made some valid points.If you are going to give yourself credit that is up to you but I don't know you from Adam so don't know anything about your knowledge and experience.You don't know much about public sector workers pay and conditions at w/e and on bank holidays that much is clear and it is a fact that someone on say,£30,000 pa would pay more in tax and ni than someone earning the same as a self employed person.A paye payer does get more benefits( assistance when sick or unemployed for eg.) but that's why they pay more as a % of their wage.It is not difficult to understand.The real enemy here is the way the whole financial system is weighted against small businesses and the common man and how it is weighted in favour of the banks and the big wigs.

Keith Iddon ● 4767d

'Some people have limited knowledge/experience and make silly comments'Who have you in mind Satvir and what constitutes a 'silly comment'?

Keith Iddon ● 4767d

I think Satvir has hit the nil on the head.All the time we are having these endless debates and discussions about private sector employees, public sector workers and the unwillingly unemployed we are missing the essential point, that being that in the present economic and political climate all three are being screwed.  It is only the bankers and the very rich who do not appear to be "in it" with the rest of us.Unless we are arguing the case for complete state control of the economy and the means of production, which I don't think anybody here is, we acknowledge the need for both a private sector and a public sector and we should be seeking to defend both.Turning this thing into a bunfight between employees from the private and public sectors, or between those who are employed and those who are not through no choice of their own, only serves to deflect our attention from the core issues.

Phil Andrews ● 4767d

Keithyou are right, i have a lots of experience and knowledge.I have close family members who are working for private and public sector. I also spoke from my experience when I interviewed candidates for jobs. I didn't say why low income people are paid. Since times are hard for all around, people need help now whether it is self-employed or employed. if employed people pay at source their Tax/ NI then self-employed pay their NI and tax too as well pay in so many different ways to comply to law, rules and regulations, which keeps so many other people in employment/self empoyment. Some people have limited knowledge/ experience and make silly comments. There are two sides to a coin.

Satvir Sidhu ● 4767d

I absolutely agree with both Vanessa and Keiths posts. You can't expect people who are being financially squeezed to go on spending willy nilly,hence self employed people (presumably they're selling something) will feel the squeeze as well,in fact they may feel it more than employed folk who are probably more adept at scrimping.  Nope I'm afraid Keith is right,you can't have it both ways,i.e. have a go at people with works pensions when the going gets tough for the self employed,that's a decision they made and should really have factored that in. Finance can't always go North sometimes (like now) it goes South.

Tony Wood ● 4767d

Local authority workers have not had a pay increase in three years now - so where you seem to think all this money is being handed out I cannot imagine. Haven't you heard about the squeeze on the public sector? There have also been massive job losses due to budget cuts right across councils and the civil service.

Vanessa Smith ● 4767d

Satvir,Whilst you seem to know about the self employed and make some valid points,you are well off he mark about the double pay at weekends and the triple at bank holidays.Many council workers,if they have to work weekends,have this factored into their rota and have,say Tuesday and Wednesday as their weekend.They may get a shift allowance for this which is usually a few quid an hour.but not in every case.Also,if bank holidays are part of their rota they get double time(-London Weighting) and an extra day's holiday.This is to compensate them for having to be away from their families at Christmas,Easter and the like and for not being able to enjoy a long weekend at home or on a short break like most people.They aslo ,like most PAYE employees pay a lot more %wise in tax and NI than someone who is self employed.The pension,btw, is contributory and the average pension for a local govn. officer is about £4,500 pa.I agree that small businesses need more help,but it has absolutely nothing to do with the agreed pay and conditions of local govn. officers.I didn't hear anyone bleating about this when they were earning much more than the public sector and when their pensions funds were booming.

Keith Iddon ● 4767d

Most people think, if you own a business, you are a rich person. People donot think how they would have raised the funds to buy or lease building and set up the business!How many hours those people work to make the ends meet? There is so much hostility with so much poor knowledge. Private sector pay reasonable salaries according to position and experience but pay juniror staff minimum wage to balance the costs.  Council staff gets paid high hourly rate,holiday pay, sick pay,double pay at weekends and triple on bank holidays etc..Small businesses pay large amounts of business rates to councils in return for nothing.Even rubbish isn't collected for free as done for houshlod owners!! Government talks everyday about helping small businesses but nothing has been done so far, ie: to reduce business rates, bank rates or service charges for leasehold properties. How can private sector afford to pay handouts when large number are struggling to survive from the sharkswith whom they have signed contracts during good times and business is now operating at around 50% sales comapre to 85-90%. The reason there are large number of companies going into liquidation. There are more darker times ahead for small/family run businesses in this country as well as low paid workers.

Satvir Sidhu ● 4767d

Hi SarahI have received your PM and replied by e-mailThanks

Paul Fisher ● 4769d

Would you confirm whether you received it (often hear of mail not being received)  and any advice would be appreciated?  Cheers,  Sarah

Sarah Felstead ● 4769d

The finance meeting agenda and meeting information is still not on the web site - the meeting is in 2 days.I was told the papers for the Finance meeting were in the process of being finalised and it will prove difficult to get the agenda and papers out to people in advance of the meeting now.If non-members of the committee are to be given a fair chance to read the information, digest and consider an approach members of the Finance Committee they would surely need more time?How much time are the committee members given to absorb the meeting information?  Time scale seems a bit mean as they are not paid employees and have lots of other things to get on with.

Sarah Felstead ● 4770d

"Our partners chose opposition"touché

Steve Taylor ● 4773d

Actually we didn't end the coalition.  Our partners chose opposition.

Phil Andrews ● 4773d

In my view the ICG did the right thing and gave the Tories the flick. Said Tories now wriggle on the opposition benches in their own slime. 

Steve Taylor ● 4773d

Ooo-er missus, I'd hate to think what that makes us in the ICG then... :-O

Phil Andrews ● 4773d

Thant would appear to be the case.....coupled with the fact they seem to think everyone working in Richmond is wealthy enough.

Steve Taylor ● 4773d

It's quite simple - all Tories are b******s

Patricia Nicholas ● 4773d

My wife assures me that Richmond Borough got ziltch so Hounslow staff are indeed lucky

Steve Taylor ● 4773d

Had a reply from a late working director last night to say that the agenda and papers for the Finance meeting on the 19th July, are in the process of being finalised.

Sarah Felstead ● 4776d

As Steve says the most important part of personnel work is to apply and uphold the law and applications to a tribunal seek to challenge and interpret the law or to clarify weakness or failure of communication applied to the worker.Personnel people have to have the interpersonal skills to communicate fairly to represent the Law, the Organisation, and the Worker.  Consequences are monetary (public money in this case) and an assault on the organisations image.One tribunal case recently lost them £ 21,181.27 in settlement, apart from their own admin and legal costs; another case was reported by them to have been settled out of court.PERSONNEL COMMITTEE. 23.2.12. HR update report page one shows the loss by way of tribunal settlement, but it does not detail (and therefore masks) the true cost to Hounslow Homes.   ***  ***  ***  ***  ***  ***  ***“”In the case heard in December 2010 the tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal, but rejected the more serious claim of race discrimination. They also felt that the claimant had contributed towards her dismissal and that her compensatory award should therefore be reduced by 25%.A final settlement figure of £ 21,181.27 was decided by the tribunal.A further case has been lodged at the tribunal by an ex-employee alleging sex discrimination in the way that an application to progress through a career grade was dealt with. The case was without merit but has been settled on a purely commercial basis for a sum of £600. “”  ***  ***  ***  ***  ***  ***  ***I find some of the slants of delivery of information in these quarterly reports to be perhaps misleading – if the case was ‘without merit’ why settle?  On what grounds was the settlement made?  Is there relief that the settlement was made?What issues were raised in each case and what was learnt from these issues?  How was the information from each case used?I may have missed it, but I could not see any reference of referral to the Finance committee or the The Best Value & Scrutiny Committee concerning losses, so it isn’t clear who would have called for a presentation of account for these losses.

Sarah Felstead ● 4778d

"This excuse has been trotted out by the bankers and city  bigwigs for ages - I notice that none of them have yet gone -"Agreed.  The bankers and the city bigwigs haven't gone because they have, with the blessing of successive governments, been able sign blank cheques to themselves.  Our core industries and the backbone has well and truly gone though. Our manufacturing, engineering and technology is now prospering in China and India and the old eastern bloc.

Steve Taylor ● 4779d

Instead their preferred solution is to keep wages low and cut benefits.  Then when nobody has any money to buy anything they wonder why we are in a recession.

Phil Andrews ● 4780d

This is daft.They should be increasing the minimum wage to further encourage people to get off benefits.It always seems to be a stick for the poor and a carrot for the rich whoever is in power.

Keith Iddon ● 4780d

"We constantly hear that legislation to make it easier for employers to dismiss staff arbitrarily, the abolition of the minimum wage and the removal of basic employee rights are necessary in order to keep us "competitive", but competitive with whom?"Let's be honest it's all b******s, it's just the same old Tory nonsense in an attempt to weaken the TUs, shame on those pathetic LibDems who are content to go along with this tripe in order to have a few crumbs of 'power' thrown to them.

Vanessa Smith ● 4780d

The problem with the idea that one group of workers should not enjoy the fruits of their labour to the full because another group of workers is denied them is that when it is taken to its logical conclusion we all end up working an 80 hour week for a bowl of rice.We constantly hear that legislation to make it easier for employers to dismiss staff arbitrarily, the abolition of the minimum wage and the removal of basic employee rights are necessary in order to keep us "competitive", but competitive with whom?  With other businesses that also exploit their workers?  Or with other economies worldwide where working people have traditionally had a lower standard of living to our own?  Once we start allowing bosses to dictate on the basis of remaining "competitive" we are on a very slippery slope indeed.The sad fact is that many employers do understand that a contented workforce is a more efficient workforce, but sadly the demands of modern capitalism are for profit this week and its dynamic does not really allow for long-term strategic planning.  That is why some intervention is necessary in order to draw a marker and set out some ground rules, but successive governments have at best fought shy of intervening on behalf of the worker and at worst have active driven the bosses' agenda.

Phil Andrews ● 4780d

"Its called greed, greed, greed. We are constantly told in the private sector that we are all 'privliged' to have jobs in the UK and the private sector could quite as easily move to India, China, Vietnam etc and get the job done for a tenth of our costs and make the shareholders even richer."This excuse has been trotted out by the bankers and city  bigwigs for ages - I notice that none of them have yet gone - it's just plain old blackmail, if it's all so brilliant in these countries then why don't they just p*ss off? I'd even be willing to make a contribution  to their tickets. Does anyone seriously think for one minute that if what they keep saying is true they wouldn't have already gone?

Vanessa Smith ● 4780d

"why not aspire to better things and expect the private sector to stop exploiting people, and aim to emulate the public sector?."Its called greed, greed, greed. We are constantly told in the private sector that we are all 'privliged' to have jobs in the UK and the private sector could quite as easily move to India, China, Vietnam etc and get the job done for a tenth of our costs and make the shareholders even richer.

Steve Taylor ● 4780d

"It would be much better of course if they could be assured that their jobs would be there for another couple of years" I disagree. In the private sector nobody is assured that their jobs will be there for another couple of years so why should it be so in the public sector. It is because of that inherent culture - jobs for life - mentality that caused the rot to set in. I think it is a great idea to award bonuses to the lower paid in public sector but it could even go a bit further, as someone else suggested,  and award extra bonuses to those who aren't constantly on 'sickies'  and deduct it from those who do take the usual Mondays and Fridays as sick leave.

Steve Taylor ● 4780d

A tribunal  about  “a request for a small temporary reduction in working hours”  is vastly different to a tribunal  alleging sex discrimination "arising from a refusal to accommodate a request for a small temporary reduction in working hours.Sex discrimination  is something nobody should have to put up with in the 21st century.

Steve Taylor ● 4781d

Agreed.The rich get richer,the poor poorer,the lazy get lazier and the squeezed middle carries on paying for most of it.

Keith Iddon ● 4781d

It seems to me that there is another way of looking at this, instead of everything being forced down to the lowest denominator, why not aspire to better things and expect the private sector to stop exploiting people, and aim to emulate the public sector?. The other thing is that £21,000 is only an average a lot of the people affected by this £250 will not earn anything like that amount. While bankers, CEOs et al rake it in in millions I for one would not begrudge an ordinary working person £250. We most certainly are NOT all in it together, we're in the sh*t and they're in the Bolly.

Vanessa Smith ● 4781d

Indeed Paul, plus many people (myself included) in various parts of the private sector, including whole companies from top to bottom, have experienced reduced salaries/shorter working weeks over recent years (I was on a 4 day week/80% pay for over 2 years).

Adam Beamish ● 4781d

The other side of the coin of course is that many in the Private Sector would be more then happy to be earning £21,000 a year and also to have the added benefits those in the Public Sector enjoy such as a subsidised pension,shorter and flexi hours each week,subsidised canteens and an allowance of guaranteed sick days etc plus more then average holiday entitlement

Paul Fisher ● 4781d

Tower Hamlets has paid this and I think Richmond has or is going to as well, see following:Low-paid council workers fail to get pay rise, says union Unison says school dinner ladies are among those who have not received the pay rise Continue reading the main story Related StoriesWhere are you on the global pay scale? Schools face action on local pay Council staff pay freeze extended Union leaders have accused ministers of reneging on a promise to give low-paid council workers a pay rise of £250.Public service union Unison said the staff in England, Wales and Northern Ireland had not received the money.Unison said the situation would leave local government employees worse off in real terms than they were 16 years ago.The Treasury said the government could not dictate what councils paid workers but they should try to protect them from the effects of the downturn.Dinner ladies In June 2010, Chancellor George Osborne said because he was implementing a two-year pay freeze, public service workers earning less than £21,000 would get a "flat pay rise" of £250 during each of those years.He said this would benefit just over a quarter of public sector workers who were "on the very lowest salaries".But the union said this money had failed to materialise for hundreds of thousands of low-paid, mainly women workers employed as carers, school dinner ladies, cleaners and teaching assistants. Unison Unison national officer Heather Wakefield said: "It is a disgrace that George Osborne has tried to fool local government workers and the public into believing he cared enough about the hardship of low pay to announce he would cushion the impact of the government pay freeze."Unison said council workers had suffered a 15% pay cut in three years and now earned a "shocking" 10% less in real terms than in 1996.Ms Wakefield added that she had written to Mr Osborne to check whether it applied to local government workers, and he had replied "yes". She said it was up to the government to ensure local authorities have the funding to cover the pay rises.Pay freeze Last month, the Local Government Association confirmed a third consecutive annual pay freeze for 1.6 million local government employees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 2012-13.It said increased salaries would result in more job losses and service cuts.The chancellor announced in November that a wider public sector pay freeze, due to end in 2013, would be followed by a 1% cap on rises for the following two years.Public sector workers earning less than £21,000 were also promised a £250 pay rise this year.But local government pay is negotiated separately between employers and unions, via the National Joint Council for local government services, and council staff did not get the rise.A Treasury spokesman said: "Local government pay is a matter for negotiation and agreement between local authorities and unions. "But we have made clear that we expect local government to show restraint on pay in line with the rest of the public sector as well as seeking to provide the lower paid with some protection from the impact of pay restraint."

Vanessa Smith ● 4781d

Often a few hours grace is a bonus to give people the freedom to sort something out, especially the way staff can be strangled by restrictions and fear of losing their jobs these days.  This style of bonus benefits the person directly and also the organisation with greater flexibility for the individual to self-manage their time.Phil said  “ I know that under the previous administration the then Council Leader Peter Thompson gave all members of the Housing and Social Services Department (as was) an extra day's holiday following an award that the department had picked up for exceptional service.”Well done Cllr Peter Thompson and the team of personnel advisers at that time…in my opinion.  :-)The topic of self-managing time is a current topic for the Council because of another tribunal case about to hit the public finances of Hounslow Homes.I have said previously that some of the Hounslow Homes personnel reports leave worrying concerns for the reader.I was ready to write to the Committee and wanted to read their May meeting reports before doing so but in the end I had to contact their communications officer (who as an individual is certainly on the ball) to get the agenda and reports posted on their web site.  By then it was far far too late for anyone to make a contribution from observations.The policies of HH suggest that its greatest asset are its people so having them behave responsibly in managing their working lives is very important.  The latest presentation of delivery of these policies (displaying achievement of targets not meaningless waffle) shows that HH have raised the issue of an employee being refused “a request for a small temporary reduction in working hours” which is leading  to another possibly very expensive tribunal case, on top of the one they lost recently.According to the ‘words written to impress’ the committee, their personnel policies are supposed to work through situations such as this, to nip issues in the bud.I only hope somebody on the board has challenged them about their targets and policy delivery to their employees, to make sure everything is sound.From their May reports submitted to the committee -“We currently have 1 case at the tribunal alleging sex discrimination arising from a refusal to accommodate a request for a small temporary reduction in working hours. No dates have yet been set for a case management discussion or hearing.”The HR strategy report attached to the same agenda for the May 12 meeting gives the information required to challenge how Personnel, sorry, HR are meeting their targets.

Sarah Felstead ● 4781d

Lower paid staff are often the ones who deliver the services to the public and if they do a good job as individuals I think this is a good idea.It can be the case that staff who are poor performers and have poor disciplinary or absence records are rewarded just the same as those who are more diligent,but I'm sure this applies to other walks of life too.It would be much better of course if they could be assured that their jobs would be there for another couple of years.

Keith Iddon ● 4781d

I know that under the previous administration the then Council Leader Peter Thompson gave all members of the Housing and Social Services Department (as was) an extra day's holiday following an award that the department had picked up for exceptional service.It does seem a little odd that this bonus has been given in such a form that the taxman must inevitably claim a hefty chunk.  All the same I think it is helpful to the cause of maintaining staff morale and, assuming the funds have been properly sourced and that the public will be able to see where the money has come from, of reassuring those who work for the local authority at the pointed end that the council does actually recognise and value the work they do.

Phil Andrews ● 4781d

"This I think you'll find has been the case across London."Mmmmm...my wife is lowly paid in Richmond Borough. I must ask her if she got something!!  On the other hand she's out with the 'girls' from work tonight so I guess they may be spending it quickly ;-)

Steve Taylor ● 4781d

It’s a strange type of bonus as a large amount of public money goes back to the treasury, in deductions.  Might have been a better idea to have given everyone a few hours bonus time to be enjoyed this  summer.

Sarah Felstead ● 4782d

To be honest I think these staff deserve the one off payment but I cannot understand where the Council found the money to do so because I do not recall seeing it in the Budget papers so I am presuming that the reserves have been dipped in to yet again and it was made by the Executive

Paul Fisher ● 4782d

This I think you'll find has been the case across London. To be honest £250 presumably taxed etc. isn't going to pay for an exotic holiday - or even a weekend in Brighton.

Vanessa Smith ● 4782d