Outrage as IT manager costs Dorset County Council £167k

Outrage as IT manager costs Dorset County Council £167k

Outrage as IT manager costs Dorset County Council £167k

Janet Dover

First published in News by

A TEMPORARY member of staff hired by Dorset County Council cost more than its chief executive, an investigation has found.

The IT worker cost more than £167,000 to hire through an agency – £20,000 more than the chief executive David Jenkins earned and almost £25,000 more than Prime Minister David Cameron.

A Dorset Echo probe has revealed the authority has been paying through the nose for staff on short term contracts when it has been making savage cuts to services and shedding jobs.

A recruitment freeze has been in place at County Hall in a bid to save money – but council chiefs have been recruiting agency staff at sky-high rates to work on what it describes as ‘specialist projects’.

Savings worth £15m have been identified in the council’s budget this year as the authority tightens its belt in light of government cuts. Last year the council made £28m worth of savings.

The authority has seen a reduction in 500 full-time posts in recent times through a combination of freezing vacancies, voluntary redundancies and compulsory redundancies.

County council chiefs have defended their strategy on agency staff.

But urgent questions were being asked today as unions condemned the actions as ‘outrageous’.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act about the council’s three top temporary earners reveal that in one year £167,081.76 was paid out for an IT services project manager including an agency fee of 16 per cent. The manager was employed from September 2009 to April 2011.

An IT services project manager would usually receive between £41,616 and £46,461.

The amount paid out for the temporary manager over one year is substantially higher than DCC’s top earner, chief executive David Jenkins who receives a salary of £147,875.

Prime Minister David Cameron receives a salary of £142,500.

Other top temporary earners include a principal manager for highways and transportation which cost the council £93,259.98 in 2010/11.

The usual salary for this role is between £45,575 and £50,912.

Council Lib Dem leader Janet Dover said: “This news, which I am grateful to the Dorset Echo for highlighting, is extremely worrying and I will be taking this up with the chief executive as a matter of urgency.

“These figures are extraordinary.”

Coun Dover added: “It is important that councillors know how much agency staff are costing. As this investigation has shown, it is not an obvious cost.

“I accept there may be specialist roles we need to recruit for but we need to find out the detail behind these figures and urgent questions need to be asked.

“People will be disappointed to know that at a time of austerity the council is spending this amount of money. Words fail me.”

'Outrageous amount of money'

Branch secretary of the Dorset branch of Unison Pamela Jefferies said: “Apart from being an outrageous amount of money to spend on a project manager, it highlights the argument for retaining public services in-house if this is what outsourcing to the private sector could mean for the council.

“I think it shows what good value for money staff and public services are.

“The private sector makes ‘good money’ from public services and this is why cutting funding to the public sector is having such effects.”

Mike Chaney, spokesman for the Association of Friends of Dorset Libraries (Ad Lib) which has been campaigning to protect libraries in the wake of council cuts, said: “It’s a terrible irony that our libraries have to be closed to save money yet the council is using, if not wasting, money in other ways.”

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:57pm Thu 24 May 12

Laughing gnome says...

"I think it shows what good value for money staff and public services are" WHAT ? £800 a week is good value ? I run my own company & get half that with no pension !
"I think it shows what good value for money staff and public services are" WHAT ? £800 a week is good value ? I run my own company & get half that with no pension ! Laughing gnome
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Thu 24 May 12

siratb says...

Yes but....If you employ an IT Services manager on say £46,000 pa., they are then in that job permanently, say 10 years. That costs you £460,000. If you only need an IT Services Manager for 1 year, for a special project, then it makes financial sense to employ contractors? (we all know a Council job is a job for life and the unions would be kicking and screaming if one was employed and let go after a year).
.
Contactors, due to the unsecure nature of their work, charge a premium, and hence a higher "annual" salary. They also don't get paid leave, don't get overtime, etc etc....
Yes but....If you employ an IT Services manager on say £46,000 pa., they are then in that job permanently, say 10 years. That costs you £460,000. If you only need an IT Services Manager for 1 year, for a special project, then it makes financial sense to employ contractors? (we all know a Council job is a job for life and the unions would be kicking and screaming if one was employed and let go after a year). . Contactors, due to the unsecure nature of their work, charge a premium, and hence a higher "annual" salary. They also don't get paid leave, don't get overtime, etc etc.... siratb
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Thu 24 May 12

notweymouth says...

You cannot do a straight comparison. It costs a lot more than 50K to employ someone permanently on a SALARY of 50K. Holiday pay, sick pay, NI, benefits, insurnace, training, pension, redundancy costs, etc.etc.
You cannot do a straight comparison. It costs a lot more than 50K to employ someone permanently on a SALARY of 50K. Holiday pay, sick pay, NI, benefits, insurnace, training, pension, redundancy costs, etc.etc. notweymouth
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Thu 24 May 12

Laughing gnome says...

By the way, Sept 2009 to April 2011 is 1 year and 7 months isn't it ?
By the way, Sept 2009 to April 2011 is 1 year and 7 months isn't it ? Laughing gnome
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Thu 24 May 12

FooWoo says...

What a waste of money. Even if that is a short term contract at a premium then it should not be anywhere near that amount. I should imagine the contract she was brought in on was a complete waste of time as well. Let the people suggest the pay rates - 50,000 is a decent wage for that sort of thing. And let us decide how and what is done in our communities with our money.
What a waste of money. Even if that is a short term contract at a premium then it should not be anywhere near that amount. I should imagine the contract she was brought in on was a complete waste of time as well. Let the people suggest the pay rates - 50,000 is a decent wage for that sort of thing. And let us decide how and what is done in our communities with our money. FooWoo
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Thu 24 May 12

cj07589 says...

What did you expect from these over paid underworked public sector jokers they couldn't care about getting best value they spend our money with contempt without any accountability or responsibility. Will anybody get sacked for this.....i sincerely doubt it.
What did you expect from these over paid underworked public sector jokers they couldn't care about getting best value they spend our money with contempt without any accountability or responsibility. Will anybody get sacked for this.....i sincerely doubt it. cj07589
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Thu 24 May 12

Sidney Hall says...

If Public Sector want a contractor, then pay contractors wages. Or employ people properly and provide the benefits that they strive to avoid. Avoiding employing on proper contracts is the only outrage here.
If Public Sector want a contractor, then pay contractors wages. Or employ people properly and provide the benefits that they strive to avoid. Avoiding employing on proper contracts is the only outrage here. Sidney Hall
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Thu 24 May 12

misterm says...

It is interesting that the Chairman of Dorset County Council has a higher salary than the Prime Minister.

Shows just where we have got our priorities wrong!
It is interesting that the Chairman of Dorset County Council has a higher salary than the Prime Minister. Shows just where we have got our priorities wrong! misterm
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Thu 24 May 12

highbloodpressure says...

Foowoo, what qualifies you to judge what a public sector worker is worth? "Let the people decide..." How will the people know what to pay? Whim? Emotion? Political Agenda? And CJ, as always you slur with a broad brush. Is that how UKIP works? I am a public sector worker. I teach blind and visually impaired children. Am I and my colleagues, all of whom are highly trained and very dedicated all "overpaid and underworked"? When I buy equipment that will enable a VI child to learn alongside his sighted classmates, am I spending money "with contempt"? As has been so often the case, the comments here are so angry, generalised and ill-informed that they are little more than pitiful rants.
Foowoo, what qualifies you to judge what a public sector worker is worth? "Let the people decide..." How will the people know what to pay? Whim? Emotion? Political Agenda? And CJ, as always you slur with a broad brush. Is that how UKIP works? I am a public sector worker. I teach blind and visually impaired children. Am I and my colleagues, all of whom are highly trained and very dedicated all "overpaid and underworked"? When I buy equipment that will enable a VI child to learn alongside his sighted classmates, am I spending money "with contempt"? As has been so often the case, the comments here are so angry, generalised and ill-informed that they are little more than pitiful rants. highbloodpressure
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Thu 24 May 12

cj07589 says...

highbloodpressure wrote:
Foowoo, what qualifies you to judge what a public sector worker is worth? "Let the people decide..." How will the people know what to pay? Whim? Emotion? Political Agenda? And CJ, as always you slur with a broad brush. Is that how UKIP works? I am a public sector worker. I teach blind and visually impaired children. Am I and my colleagues, all of whom are highly trained and very dedicated all "overpaid and underworked"? When I buy equipment that will enable a VI child to learn alongside his sighted classmates, am I spending money "with contempt"? As has been so often the case, the comments here are so angry, generalised and ill-informed that they are little more than pitiful rants.
Highbloodpressure you’re the one doing the whinging and ranting here pal! As i'm effectively your employer, I am fully entitled to voice an opinion; its called free speech and democracy please look it up next time you’re passing the library.
Clearly value for money is an alien concept to you of course it’s a bottomless pit of money as far as you are concerned right?
Why you brought your little violin to this debate is quite frankly beyond me you need to get some perspective it’s about the bigger picture. If you are not happy with your employment terms then may I suggest find another job like the rest of us who live in the real world, otherwise stop raising erroneous points that have nothing to do with the topic being debated. In case you haven’t noticed we are in a recession with the Euro currency in free fall soon to be a depression and money doesn’t grow on trees.
[quote][p][bold]highbloodpressure[/bold] wrote: Foowoo, what qualifies you to judge what a public sector worker is worth? "Let the people decide..." How will the people know what to pay? Whim? Emotion? Political Agenda? And CJ, as always you slur with a broad brush. Is that how UKIP works? I am a public sector worker. I teach blind and visually impaired children. Am I and my colleagues, all of whom are highly trained and very dedicated all "overpaid and underworked"? When I buy equipment that will enable a VI child to learn alongside his sighted classmates, am I spending money "with contempt"? As has been so often the case, the comments here are so angry, generalised and ill-informed that they are little more than pitiful rants.[/p][/quote]Highbloodpressure you’re the one doing the whinging and ranting here pal! As i'm effectively your employer, I am fully entitled to voice an opinion; its called free speech and democracy please look it up next time you’re passing the library. Clearly value for money is an alien concept to you of course it’s a bottomless pit of money as far as you are concerned right? Why you brought your little violin to this debate is quite frankly beyond me you need to get some perspective it’s about the bigger picture. If you are not happy with your employment terms then may I suggest find another job like the rest of us who live in the real world, otherwise stop raising erroneous points that have nothing to do with the topic being debated. In case you haven’t noticed we are in a recession with the Euro currency in free fall soon to be a depression and money doesn’t grow on trees. cj07589
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Thu 24 May 12

Barry_Bonnet says...

Without knowing what this contractor achieved, how can ANYONE say it was bad value for money?

It's entirely plausible that the savings outweighed the costs.

PS. I don't work in the public sector, before anyone asks.
Without knowing what this contractor achieved, how can ANYONE say it was bad value for money? It's entirely plausible that the savings outweighed the costs. PS. I don't work in the public sector, before anyone asks. Barry_Bonnet
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Thu 24 May 12

cj07589 says...

Highbloodpressure what on earth does your pitiful ‘feel sorry for me’ rant have to do with UKIP, main stream politics or myself exactly? In case you’ve failed to notice my opinion has nothing to do with any political party, the debate here is purely about our local authority’s management of taxes in particular the extraordinary high level of remuneration. So far all you have demonstrated is an aggressive unfocused and childish attempt of insults because you do not agree.
Highbloodpressure what on earth does your pitiful ‘feel sorry for me’ rant have to do with UKIP, main stream politics or myself exactly? In case you’ve failed to notice my opinion has nothing to do with any political party, the debate here is purely about our local authority’s management of taxes in particular the extraordinary high level of remuneration. So far all you have demonstrated is an aggressive unfocused and childish attempt of insults because you do not agree. cj07589
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Thu 24 May 12

happyhacker says...

It would appear we give our County Council an open cheque when we appoint them. Where is the report on the results of this exercise so we can see where it all went wrong?
It would appear we give our County Council an open cheque when we appoint them. Where is the report on the results of this exercise so we can see where it all went wrong? happyhacker
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Thu 24 May 12

highbloodpressure says...

Gosh, that's rattled your cage! No violins here CJ. I am proud of what I do. I am well supported by County Hall and as a consequence I believe I make a difference.
True, this has little direct link to the article but I when folk commence an assault on all public workers as you do, I will always defend myself.
Gosh, that's rattled your cage! No violins here CJ. I am proud of what I do. I am well supported by County Hall and as a consequence I believe I make a difference. True, this has little direct link to the article but I when folk commence an assault on all public workers as you do, I will always defend myself. highbloodpressure
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Thu 24 May 12

bournemouth1234 says...

Ok i think what everyone is forgetting and is the core issue is value for money .

To put it in context if every worker in local authority considered the money they condoned was their own money and looked at all possible scenarios then it would be a tighter ship.

Lets Looks at the scenario from a public sector perspective ...

I want to buy a fridge , so how do i go about that

I go to Asda , Currys , Argos and i look at which one suits my budget find the one i want go home and look for the same item on Ebay Amazon etc .

I will buy at the best price and who has the better reputation .

Local authority looks at selected list of approved suppliers no one main stream and pick the one they get on more with .

The suppliers know this and take the mick as well , THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD !!

And it is not your money , this practicality is the same way that Ms Miggins at Bournemouth council applies to her normal shopping but forgets it when she goes to work .

The gravy train has docked at the staion as the pot is not infinite !!
Ok i think what everyone is forgetting and is the core issue is value for money . To put it in context if every worker in local authority considered the money they condoned was their own money and looked at all possible scenarios then it would be a tighter ship. Lets Looks at the scenario from a public sector perspective ... I want to buy a fridge , so how do i go about that I go to Asda , Currys , Argos and i look at which one suits my budget find the one i want go home and look for the same item on Ebay Amazon etc . I will buy at the best price and who has the better reputation . Local authority looks at selected list of approved suppliers no one main stream and pick the one they get on more with . The suppliers know this and take the mick as well , THIS IS NOT THE REAL WORLD !! And it is not your money , this practicality is the same way that Ms Miggins at Bournemouth council applies to her normal shopping but forgets it when she goes to work . The gravy train has docked at the staion as the pot is not infinite !! bournemouth1234
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Thu 24 May 12

Joe_Bloggs says...

Trouble is that when something goes wrong who is going to fix it and at what price, that is why permanent staff doing the job and supporting the project after it has been deployed is better value over a 10 year period.
Trouble is that when something goes wrong who is going to fix it and at what price, that is why permanent staff doing the job and supporting the project after it has been deployed is better value over a 10 year period. Joe_Bloggs
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Thu 24 May 12

bournemouth1234 says...

Who is laughing Janet Dover , she took the Bournemouth tax payers for all she could , and to be fair not her fault she was given the job so in her head was why not. Although i doubt anything she did was worth a fraction of what she was paid ....

That was her salary god knows what she took in benefits !
Who is laughing Janet Dover , she took the Bournemouth tax payers for all she could , and to be fair not her fault she was given the job so in her head was why not. Although i doubt anything she did was worth a fraction of what she was paid .... That was her salary god knows what she took in benefits ! bournemouth1234
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Thu 24 May 12

woodsedge says...

highbloodpressure wrote:
Gosh, that's rattled your cage! No violins here CJ. I am proud of what I do. I am well supported by County Hall and as a consequence I believe I make a difference. True, this has little direct link to the article but I when folk commence an assault on all public workers as you do, I will always defend myself.
highbloodpressure, you are wasting your time and effort with cjFirage. His UKIP mate will be along in a minute to tell you the answer to all our problems is "Johnny foreigner" sapping the country’s resources. My wife is a public sector worker and you are right to be proud of what you do and for serving our community, I for one would like to thank you, not all of us are like cj. What this article adequately demonstrates is that in most cases, private is not better than public and I bet this is the tip of the iceberg, public money wasted on private greed.
[quote][p][bold]highbloodpressure[/bold] wrote: Gosh, that's rattled your cage! No violins here CJ. I am proud of what I do. I am well supported by County Hall and as a consequence I believe I make a difference. True, this has little direct link to the article but I when folk commence an assault on all public workers as you do, I will always defend myself.[/p][/quote]highbloodpressure, you are wasting your time and effort with cjFirage. His UKIP mate will be along in a minute to tell you the answer to all our problems is "Johnny foreigner" sapping the country’s resources. My wife is a public sector worker and you are right to be proud of what you do and for serving our community, I for one would like to thank you, not all of us are like cj. What this article adequately demonstrates is that in most cases, private is not better than public and I bet this is the tip of the iceberg, public money wasted on private greed. woodsedge
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Thu 24 May 12

dorchbloke says...

Over the 19 months of the contract this is approx £55 p/h which is not that extreme for a IT Manager level contractor normal contract rate is £45-50 so council paid a small premium.
Over the 19 months of the contract this is approx £55 p/h which is not that extreme for a IT Manager level contractor normal contract rate is £45-50 so council paid a small premium. dorchbloke
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Thu 24 May 12

bournemouth1234 says...

I agree woodsedge and you probably wont complain when your public sector pension is bolstered by your wifes fat local authority pension !! Oh the gravy train : ).... You missed the point though why isnt the public sector looking methodically to cut costs???? Same was as the general public are having to do , antiquated and backward thinking !!!
I agree woodsedge and you probably wont complain when your public sector pension is bolstered by your wifes fat local authority pension !! Oh the gravy train : ).... You missed the point though why isnt the public sector looking methodically to cut costs???? Same was as the general public are having to do , antiquated and backward thinking !!! bournemouth1234
  • Score: 0

9:48pm Thu 24 May 12

bournemouth1234 says...

Dorchbloke .... I dont know where you are going with your financials but 55 an hour for an IT job is viable ? If thats plausible then please explain as there is alittle known term called ROI return of investment , just look at the IMAX and the shroud of doubt that surrounded that ... Someone from the public sector benefitted from the private sector :)
Dorchbloke .... I dont know where you are going with your financials but 55 an hour for an IT job is viable ? If thats plausible then please explain as there is alittle known term called ROI return of investment , just look at the IMAX and the shroud of doubt that surrounded that ... Someone from the public sector benefitted from the private sector :) bournemouth1234
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Thu 24 May 12

portland6 says...

"Earns more than the Prime Minister" is one of those convenient Daily Mail cliches, though, isn't it? He's PAID £142,000 - but also given a home in the centre of London, a second home in his constituency he can sell for profit, all of his food, all of his transport, all of his clothes, a wage for his wife as "secretary" etc. Plus guaranteed millions from his memoirs and tours once a proper election votes him out. No-one earns more than the PM - who is already independently wealthy.
"Earns more than the Prime Minister" is one of those convenient Daily Mail cliches, though, isn't it? He's PAID £142,000 - but also given a home in the centre of London, a second home in his constituency he can sell for profit, all of his food, all of his transport, all of his clothes, a wage for his wife as "secretary" etc. Plus guaranteed millions from his memoirs and tours once a proper election votes him out. No-one earns more than the PM - who is already independently wealthy. portland6
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Thu 24 May 12

bournemouth1234 says...

Perhaps if David Jenkins did something significant then he can draw out extra money As it stands today i didnt even know the name of Bournemouth's chief executive before this article was written. Qualify what he does and explain how he is excellent value for money then make a statement about previous PM . A very mute point !!! I have to qualify how i draw my wage and demonstrate my return to the business.

So why cant we ask the same questions to our employees ???

Never forget we pay for you and you are questionable and it will get worse as the economy dwindles
Perhaps if David Jenkins did something significant then he can draw out extra money As it stands today i didnt even know the name of Bournemouth's chief executive before this article was written. Qualify what he does and explain how he is excellent value for money then make a statement about previous PM . A very mute point !!! I have to qualify how i draw my wage and demonstrate my return to the business. So why cant we ask the same questions to our employees ??? Never forget we pay for you and you are questionable and it will get worse as the economy dwindles bournemouth1234
  • Score: 0

7:28am Fri 25 May 12

JamesYoung says...

I am an IT contractor. I bill £65 an hour. I think the £55 billed by this person is very reasonable. IT contractors at this level are professionals running limited companies. We have to provide our own pensions, sick pay, holiday pay and insurance. We have to cover gaps between contracts which in the current economic environment can run into months. A plumber will charge £50 an hour. A solicitor £180+. At this level chances are that the person concerned was much better qualified and experienced than the equivalent permanent staff member. On that basis alone £55 is reasonable. We don't know what project this person was working on or what benefits it delivered. But I can say that the council has obviously moved on from the era of bringing in large external consultancies who would charge £1200+. This suggests that the council is thinking about best value.
I am an IT contractor. I bill £65 an hour. I think the £55 billed by this person is very reasonable. IT contractors at this level are professionals running limited companies. We have to provide our own pensions, sick pay, holiday pay and insurance. We have to cover gaps between contracts which in the current economic environment can run into months. A plumber will charge £50 an hour. A solicitor £180+. At this level chances are that the person concerned was much better qualified and experienced than the equivalent permanent staff member. On that basis alone £55 is reasonable. We don't know what project this person was working on or what benefits it delivered. But I can say that the council has obviously moved on from the era of bringing in large external consultancies who would charge £1200+. This suggests that the council is thinking about best value. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

10:19am Fri 25 May 12

rosielee says...

what did this contractor actually do anyway? what was the work? did it have urgent need? did it improve anything?
i think the whole thing is laughable- there are many skilled people who are desperate to work and would have worked for a fraction of this amount- its an employers market in a recession- they usually can take their pick of workers and dictate terms and conditions. i cant really find any excuse for this- when people are faced with eating or paying council tax.
what did this contractor actually do anyway? what was the work? did it have urgent need? did it improve anything? i think the whole thing is laughable- there are many skilled people who are desperate to work and would have worked for a fraction of this amount- its an employers market in a recession- they usually can take their pick of workers and dictate terms and conditions. i cant really find any excuse for this- when people are faced with eating or paying council tax. rosielee
  • Score: 0

11:06am Fri 25 May 12

JamesYoung says...

"It's an employers market"

Yes, but they didn't want an employee. They wanted to engage a company to provide the service because that way they didn't have a long term commitment. At £55 an hour, that is pretty good value considering normal labour rates.
"It's an employers market" Yes, but they didn't want an employee. They wanted to engage a company to provide the service because that way they didn't have a long term commitment. At £55 an hour, that is pretty good value considering normal labour rates. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

11:16am Fri 25 May 12

markerpen says...

It seems the council can’t win.

No I don’t work for any council....

People berate them for paying employees out of the public purse and then complain if services are provided by private contractors. (I despise the "I pay your wages" bas^ar*s)

Mark my words if we don’t allow councils to recover and pay good wages to their employees we will be paying fortunes to the private sector to do the same jobs, it's happened before.

Contractors are sitting in the wings rubbing their hands with glee while Councils whittle themselves down to a core of the protected useless.

And "The public" won’t be able to do anything about the costs from private companies as there will be no skilled people left in councils anymore.

Should councils be run with fundamentally different business models? Probably yes, as long as they are politically aloof entities that pretend they represent us when all they do is represent their councillors ambition for re-election we will suffer waste and inefficiency.
It seems the council can’t win. No I don’t work for any council.... People berate them for paying employees out of the public purse and then complain if services are provided by private contractors. (I despise the "I pay your wages" bas^ar*s) Mark my words if we don’t allow councils to recover and pay good wages to their employees we will be paying fortunes to the private sector to do the same jobs, it's happened before. Contractors are sitting in the wings rubbing their hands with glee while Councils whittle themselves down to a core of the protected useless. And "The public" won’t be able to do anything about the costs from private companies as there will be no skilled people left in councils anymore. Should councils be run with fundamentally different business models? Probably yes, as long as they are politically aloof entities that pretend they represent us when all they do is represent their councillors ambition for re-election we will suffer waste and inefficiency. markerpen
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Fri 25 May 12

JamesYoung says...

"while Councils whittle themselves down to a core of the protected useless. "

If you had to outline the problem with the ways that councils operate you couldn't summarise it better than that. Neutron Jack Welch (the guy credited with turning General Electric around) used to fire his lowest performing 10% of managers. Result: 4000% increase in value of the company. Councils end up letting the good people get fed up and leave and get left with the dross, who seem to get shuffled around in endless redeployments. And the upshot - the inefficiency that results from inept staff and overly risk averse bureaucracy results in the good people being tarred with the same brush.
"while Councils whittle themselves down to a core of the protected useless. " If you had to outline the problem with the ways that councils operate you couldn't summarise it better than that. Neutron Jack Welch (the guy credited with turning General Electric around) used to fire his lowest performing 10% of managers. Result: 4000% increase in value of the company. Councils end up letting the good people get fed up and leave and get left with the dross, who seem to get shuffled around in endless redeployments. And the upshot - the inefficiency that results from inept staff and overly risk averse bureaucracy results in the good people being tarred with the same brush. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Fri 25 May 12

siratb says...

People are missing the point. For the council to employ an employee, the long term costs would have exceeded the cost of employing a contractor with no long term commitment to do the job.
.
So this was a smart business decision designed to save us, the tax payer, money and I for one am not "outraged".
People are missing the point. For the council to employ an employee, the long term costs would have exceeded the cost of employing a contractor with no long term commitment to do the job. . So this was a smart business decision designed to save us, the tax payer, money and I for one am not "outraged". siratb
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Fri 25 May 12

JamesYoung says...

Exactly, Siratb.

And the numbers don't make sense anyway. £167,000 divided by the day rate quoted implies the person concerned worked every weekday including Christmas day. I suspect somebody has quoted a figure to the journalist, who has just multiplied it by the days in a year. For all we know, the figure includes VAT too! Certainly the day rate quoted seems odd - £640 and 33 pence?
Exactly, Siratb. And the numbers don't make sense anyway. £167,000 divided by the day rate quoted implies the person concerned worked every weekday including Christmas day. I suspect somebody has quoted a figure to the journalist, who has just multiplied it by the days in a year. For all we know, the figure includes VAT too! Certainly the day rate quoted seems odd - £640 and 33 pence? JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Sat 26 May 12

ex sapper says...

Misterm says "It is interesting that the DCC chairman gets more than the P M.I think it is better value to Dorset perhaps
Misterm says "It is interesting that the DCC chairman gets more than the P M.I think it is better value to Dorset perhaps ex sapper
  • Score: 0

9:41am Mon 28 May 12

cj07589 says...

highbloodpressure wrote:
Gosh, that's rattled your cage! No violins here CJ. I am proud of what I do. I am well supported by County Hall and as a consequence I believe I make a difference.
True, this has little direct link to the article but I when folk commence an assault on all public workers as you do, I will always defend myself.
Highbloodpressure: You’ve completely misunderstood the point, to correct your broad sweeping assumptions contrary to what your fellow comrades have re-programmed you to think and say. I very much welcome a good and fit for purpose public service provided it’s fully funded and does not increase poll taxes year on year. You are entitled to think what you like, but it doesn’t mean you are correct; I think it’s high time you lost the 'little Englander' mentality. If you think £167k equivalent to £9,823 per month or £2,455 per week or £491per day for a temporary IT worker to work 17 months reflects good value for money then I pity you. Not withstanding the rate here exceeds the national industry remuneration standards which take recognizance of the uplift associated with the premium of operating in London too.
The 16% agent commission alone is £26.7k which is equivalent to a teacher or nurse’s annual salary. As it is an employers market I fail to recognize this as a good deal for local rate payers.

I have absolutely no doubt that very tough economic times are to follow, your blind support of your employers and fellow comrades is commendable but fool hardy. I’m glad my taxes won’t be wasted on WDCC for much longer and I certainly won’t miss the goldfish bowl mentality. Once the Greeks, Spanish, French and Italians default and public spending is slashed further as a direct result then you might begin to appreciate how very lucky you are to even be fully time secure employed with a pension that is the envy of most and more holidays than I’d care to state.
[quote][p][bold]highbloodpressure[/bold] wrote: Gosh, that's rattled your cage! No violins here CJ. I am proud of what I do. I am well supported by County Hall and as a consequence I believe I make a difference. True, this has little direct link to the article but I when folk commence an assault on all public workers as you do, I will always defend myself.[/p][/quote]Highbloodpressure: You’ve completely misunderstood the point, to correct your broad sweeping assumptions contrary to what your fellow comrades have re-programmed you to think and say. I very much welcome a good and fit for purpose public service provided it’s fully funded and does not increase poll taxes year on year. You are entitled to think what you like, but it doesn’t mean you are correct; I think it’s high time you lost the 'little Englander' mentality. If you think £167k equivalent to £9,823 per month or £2,455 per week or £491per day for a temporary IT worker to work 17 months reflects good value for money then I pity you. Not withstanding the rate here exceeds the national industry remuneration standards which take recognizance of the uplift associated with the premium of operating in London too. The 16% agent commission alone is £26.7k which is equivalent to a teacher or nurse’s annual salary. As it is an employers market I fail to recognize this as a good deal for local rate payers. I have absolutely no doubt that very tough economic times are to follow, your blind support of your employers and fellow comrades is commendable but fool hardy. I’m glad my taxes won’t be wasted on WDCC for much longer and I certainly won’t miss the goldfish bowl mentality. Once the Greeks, Spanish, French and Italians default and public spending is slashed further as a direct result then you might begin to appreciate how very lucky you are to even be fully time secure employed with a pension that is the envy of most and more holidays than I’d care to state. cj07589
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Mon 28 May 12

woodsedge says...

cj07589 wrote:
highbloodpressure wrote: Gosh, that's rattled your cage! No violins here CJ. I am proud of what I do. I am well supported by County Hall and as a consequence I believe I make a difference. True, this has little direct link to the article but I when folk commence an assault on all public workers as you do, I will always defend myself.
Highbloodpressure: You’ve completely misunderstood the point, to correct your broad sweeping assumptions contrary to what your fellow comrades have re-programmed you to think and say. I very much welcome a good and fit for purpose public service provided it’s fully funded and does not increase poll taxes year on year. You are entitled to think what you like, but it doesn’t mean you are correct; I think it’s high time you lost the 'little Englander' mentality. If you think £167k equivalent to £9,823 per month or £2,455 per week or £491per day for a temporary IT worker to work 17 months reflects good value for money then I pity you. Not withstanding the rate here exceeds the national industry remuneration standards which take recognizance of the uplift associated with the premium of operating in London too. The 16% agent commission alone is £26.7k which is equivalent to a teacher or nurse’s annual salary. As it is an employers market I fail to recognize this as a good deal for local rate payers. I have absolutely no doubt that very tough economic times are to follow, your blind support of your employers and fellow comrades is commendable but fool hardy. I’m glad my taxes won’t be wasted on WDCC for much longer and I certainly won’t miss the goldfish bowl mentality. Once the Greeks, Spanish, French and Italians default and public spending is slashed further as a direct result then you might begin to appreciate how very lucky you are to even be fully time secure employed with a pension that is the envy of most and more holidays than I’d care to state.
“That was a party political broadcast on behalf of UKIP formally the Monster Raving Looney Party”. By the way its Council tax not poll tax, poll tax is a term from yesteryear, a bit like you’re thinking. Why do you continually refer to highbloodpressures colleagues as “comrades”? It must be your paranoia that everyone who works in the public sector or who disagrees with your relentless verbal diarrhoea is a left wing. Very sad you really do need to get out more and mingle with normal people
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]highbloodpressure[/bold] wrote: Gosh, that's rattled your cage! No violins here CJ. I am proud of what I do. I am well supported by County Hall and as a consequence I believe I make a difference. True, this has little direct link to the article but I when folk commence an assault on all public workers as you do, I will always defend myself.[/p][/quote]Highbloodpressure: You’ve completely misunderstood the point, to correct your broad sweeping assumptions contrary to what your fellow comrades have re-programmed you to think and say. I very much welcome a good and fit for purpose public service provided it’s fully funded and does not increase poll taxes year on year. You are entitled to think what you like, but it doesn’t mean you are correct; I think it’s high time you lost the 'little Englander' mentality. If you think £167k equivalent to £9,823 per month or £2,455 per week or £491per day for a temporary IT worker to work 17 months reflects good value for money then I pity you. Not withstanding the rate here exceeds the national industry remuneration standards which take recognizance of the uplift associated with the premium of operating in London too. The 16% agent commission alone is £26.7k which is equivalent to a teacher or nurse’s annual salary. As it is an employers market I fail to recognize this as a good deal for local rate payers. I have absolutely no doubt that very tough economic times are to follow, your blind support of your employers and fellow comrades is commendable but fool hardy. I’m glad my taxes won’t be wasted on WDCC for much longer and I certainly won’t miss the goldfish bowl mentality. Once the Greeks, Spanish, French and Italians default and public spending is slashed further as a direct result then you might begin to appreciate how very lucky you are to even be fully time secure employed with a pension that is the envy of most and more holidays than I’d care to state.[/p][/quote]“That was a party political broadcast on behalf of UKIP formally the Monster Raving Looney Party”. By the way its Council tax not poll tax, poll tax is a term from yesteryear, a bit like you’re thinking. Why do you continually refer to highbloodpressures colleagues as “comrades”? It must be your paranoia that everyone who works in the public sector or who disagrees with your relentless verbal diarrhoea is a left wing. Very sad you really do need to get out more and mingle with normal people woodsedge
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Mon 28 May 12

JamesYoung says...

Woods edge - the guy keeps referring to an "employers market" and national compensation guidelines. The point here is that the council engaged - not employed - an external service provider (ie a company). So highbloodpressure is not understanding the issue anyway.
Woods edge - the guy keeps referring to an "employers market" and national compensation guidelines. The point here is that the council engaged - not employed - an external service provider (ie a company). So highbloodpressure is not understanding the issue anyway. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Mon 28 May 12

TomCaulfield says...

Does anybody fancy a line dance? For old times sake?
Does anybody fancy a line dance? For old times sake? TomCaulfield
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree