Blackburn council pledge to increase wages is criticised (From Lancashire Telegraph)
When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Blackburn council pledge to increase wages is criticised
3:05pm Tuesday 4th September 2012 in News
By Bill Jacobs, Local government reporter
A PLEDGE by Blackburn with Darwen borough to increase wages for hundreds of its lowest paid staff by more than a pound an hour has been criticised by political and business leaders.
The critics have said they cannot see how the authority can propose such a move at the same time as complaining about being forced to rein back spend-ing and cut services because of Whitehall grant reductions.
The full council forum has approved the authority’s corp-orate plan for 2012 to 2015, which includes a target of paying all its 3,000 plus employee a “living wage” of £7.20 an hour compared to the national minimum wage of £6.08 a hour.
On page four the document outlines how the borough is “planning for future savings of between £11 million and £27 million over the next two years”.
On page six it states the aim of paying the “living wage” to staff.
Executive member for resources Andy Kay said: “This would affect some hundreds of our lowest paid employees. We cannot do it now because of the financial situation.”
Tory leader Michael Lee said: “While this may be a worthy aim, you must question whether now is the time to be considering it.”
Mike Damms, chief executive of the East Lancashire Chamber of Commerce, said: “This is a complex issue. What the council pays its staff is a matter for it.
“If they want to pay the highest earning employees a bit less to pay their lowest paid a bit more, that is their affair.
“However, they should not be paying their staff more than their counterparts in the private sector.”
Jonathan Isaby, political director of the Tax-Payers’ Alliance, said: “Hard-pressed council taxpayers in Blackburn with Darwen certainly have every right to ask how on earth the council thinks it could afford to introduce a ‘living wage’ when it is having to find tens of millions in savings elsewhere.
“More than that, they will wonder why — when public sector workers already enjoy better average pay and pensions than their private sector counterparts — the council is seeking effectively to widen that gap further.”
Comments are closed on this article.
Comments (21)
3:42pm Tue 4 Sep 12
roversjeff says...
3:50pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Elegant1 says...
4:06pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Brian Todd says...
Many of our population are paid what is the legal "Minimum Wage" but this is nt enough to live a reasonable life in 2012 thefogures now suggested would allow a decent life although not a very generous one.
I only wish our Private employers would take as much tine to consider their workers and agree to offer this absolute minimum stanfard as opposed to the "Legal Minimum Wage".
4:21pm Tue 4 Sep 12
jack daniels says...
ies than others on the same pay.
Are we intending to see an increase across the board (bad timing to say the least!) or have the forum an idea about resolving this potential tinder box?
4:33pm Tue 4 Sep 12
midas says...
.
How much does Jonathan Isaby earn? I bet its a lot more than £7 per hour.
4:44pm Tue 4 Sep 12
mavrick says...
5:20pm Tue 4 Sep 12
barryinthailand says...
6:37pm Tue 4 Sep 12
ste.g says...
8:18pm Tue 4 Sep 12
RUinsane says...
Yeah sounds good doesn't it. Then you realise all the minimum wage workers in the private sector are the immagrants this government and the last government brought in to keep the wokers wages down. They want you to live in abject poverty whilst they quaff the champaigne and laugh at your stupidity. Monkeys thats all you are, working for bananas
8:54pm Tue 4 Sep 12
woolywords says...
Commerce says, '..they should not be paying their staff more than their counterparts in the private sector.”
Oh really?
So you would sooner see a poorer quality service in the area, as the profits are siphoned off to some bank in Lichtenstien then, evading UK tax and publication of profits, as was the case with Biffa bin, until a 'whistle-blower' exposed them?
Do you think for one second that those in the private sector are going to be better paid, with better working conditions, paid holidays and a pension when they are too knackered to work? That's even if they haven't made off with the pension funds before the day to pay out.
Tell you what do, phone up the Council, ask for a week on the bins then ask yourself if you would walk a few miles in his boots for the same money. I know how it is, for I was a binman in Clitheroe, when they used poly bags and I'm here to tell you that it is hard graft. Then there is the distance covered, about 4 miles an hour for an 8 hour day. That's 6 more than a Marathon, every day for 5 days.
In future, I suggest that you engage brain before opening mouth and avoid vacillating on any subject that you patently know nothing about!
9:04pm Tue 4 Sep 12
turd moor says...
it's because it's the council people are having a whinge and nothing else
10:17pm Tue 4 Sep 12
salcat says...
10:28pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Excluded again says...
I expect an announcement from Councillor Michael Lee, Mike Damms and Jonathon Isaby that they will be being paid £6.08 an hour for the next year (at least). Otherwise they are just greedy hypocrites - wanting to keep high wages for themselves but denying decent wages to toehr people.
4:10am Wed 5 Sep 12
SWP supporter says...
9:04am Wed 5 Sep 12
Rumpole says...
If the council workers really believe they are entitled to a better wage then they should look for a job in the private sector and stop complaining that they don't get paid enough.
Brilliant how they can find money for pay rises when they are complaining of cuts to staff and services yet can find the money to treat themselves to a better wage than most of the people that pay their wages, maybe if they did their job properly in the first place then the taxpayers might believe they deserve a pay rise.
Above all remember, you work for the council, you are a servant to the taxpayers of the borough, you are not a member of the royal household or the house of lords and certainly no better than the ordinary worker on the street so suck it up and do your jobs properly!
11:14am Wed 5 Sep 12
ladysal says...
Get off your high horse, read the article and get your facts straight.
3:58pm Wed 5 Sep 12
midas says...
.
Why do you link poor pay in the public sector to pay in the private sector?
.
" yet can find the money to treat themselves to a better wage than most of the people that pay their wages..." thats the point these are people on the minimum wage and they will get an extra £1 per hour, do you earnmore than £7 per hour?
9:51pm Wed 5 Sep 12
jack daniels says...
Minus Tax = £2379
Minus NI = £1488.96
Total = £16132.04
I will obviously pay my mortgage out of this rather than claim housing benefit (housing benefit for a 3 bedroom is £103.85pw x 52 = £5400)
Minus £5400
Total = £10732.04
If I was unemployed I would be able to claim up to £111.45 pw (£111.45 x 52 = £5795.40)
Minus £5795.40
Total = £4936.64
Minus VAT @20% = £987.33 (this should cover added petrol and booze tax V’s food being vat free)
Total = £3949.31
Now I know that these figures are not exact (so please don’t be petty) but the point is that £4855.29 of the £20k goes straight back into the government coffers as tax and when you add the difference between me providing an important service in the public sector and being unemployed we are looking at roughly £3949.31; which is pretty good value for the services we provide for YOU the people.
12:29pm Thu 6 Sep 12
anon 7 says...
12:34pm Thu 6 Sep 12
anon 7 says...
10:05pm Fri 7 Sep 12
julespent says...