Councillor Beesley is blasted by union boss over potential job losses

Councillor Beesley is blasted by union boss over potential job losses

Councillor Beesley is blasted by union boss over potential job losses

First published in News
Last updated
by

UNION chiefs have attacked the leader of Bournemouth council over his claim that improving their members’ pay would mean job losses.

Many council services are set to be disrupted today by a pay strike, while trade unionists will protest outside the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth.

Cllr Beesley had criticised the strike and said there would have to be more job losses if a higher pay offer was approved nationally.

But Joanne Kaye, regional secretary for UNISON South West, said a pay rise would mean thousands of staff would be able to spend more in the local economy.

“We have thousands of members across the town, all of whom pay the council tax that funds Cllr Beesley’s £36,000 claim in allowances and giving them a pay rise would not only benefit the local economy but would also lift many out of reliance on in-work benefits,” she said.

“He also seems unaware of the fact that over half of the cost of our claim would be met by this lifting of council workers out of benefits – is he perfectly happy for local tax payers to have to subsidise poverty pay in local government so that he doesn’t have to pay people a decent wage.” But Cllr Beesley, who said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike, said the council’s grant from government would have fallen by 47 per cent by next year.

“Any increase in pay above inflation would have to be resourced from somewhere,” he said.

“The only alternative would be to have more compulsory redundancies and we in Bournemouth have been successful in preventing large numbers of compulsory redundancies.”

UNISON has challenged Cllr Beesley “to explain to our members why he is worth £36,000 per year and yet our members are not worth a £1.20 per hour pay rise”.

Cllr Beesley said cabinet members took a five per cent pay cut in 2010-11 and all members’ allowances had been frozen since. He said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:00am Thu 10 Jul 14

BIGTONE says...

A bully boy threaten tactics.
A fair amount of jobs are outsourced so does this mean he has job losses planned anyway?
A bully boy threaten tactics. A fair amount of jobs are outsourced so does this mean he has job losses planned anyway? BIGTONE
  • Score: 20

7:04am Thu 10 Jul 14

Chimes says...

Are all Union leaders thick or simply disingenuous?
Are all Union leaders thick or simply disingenuous? Chimes
  • Score: -30

7:29am Thu 10 Jul 14

skydriver says...

Chimes wrote:
Are all Union leaders thick or simply disingenuous?
As some council leaders are!
[quote][p][bold]Chimes[/bold] wrote: Are all Union leaders thick or simply disingenuous?[/p][/quote]As some council leaders are! skydriver
  • Score: 20

7:32am Thu 10 Jul 14

dorsetjack says...

Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case. dorsetjack
  • Score: 2

8:29am Thu 10 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

I don't agree with strike action but its a bit rich when someone like Beesley who is on some extortionate pen pushing wage plus expenses tells those front line workers who are struggling that they have to manage on what they get.
It may be better if this country gets away from relying on benefits to uplift wages and just pay a living wage in the first place.
I don't agree with strike action but its a bit rich when someone like Beesley who is on some extortionate pen pushing wage plus expenses tells those front line workers who are struggling that they have to manage on what they get. It may be better if this country gets away from relying on benefits to uplift wages and just pay a living wage in the first place. Hessenford
  • Score: 19

8:34am Thu 10 Jul 14

Baysider says...

dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...
[quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are... Baysider
  • Score: 13

8:45am Thu 10 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
Perhaps if Beesley and his inexperienced cronies hadn't wasted millions on a surf reef that didn't work, the imax that should never have been built, thousands on a stupid sign across the spur road and fencing at the cooper dean roundabout he may have had enough in the kitty to pay a decent living wage.
Never mind going on about where extra funding will come from, if councils lived within their means instead of paying for hair brained schemes thought up by senile out of touch old duffers the funding would already be there.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]Perhaps if Beesley and his inexperienced cronies hadn't wasted millions on a surf reef that didn't work, the imax that should never have been built, thousands on a stupid sign across the spur road and fencing at the cooper dean roundabout he may have had enough in the kitty to pay a decent living wage. Never mind going on about where extra funding will come from, if councils lived within their means instead of paying for hair brained schemes thought up by senile out of touch old duffers the funding would already be there. Hessenford
  • Score: 20

8:51am Thu 10 Jul 14

Anneaa says...

The Council are inefficient now with the current members. More interested in building monstrosities than keep a good workforce! Lose good workers and where will Bournemouth be then? "Down the Swany without a paddle!"
The Council are inefficient now with the current members. More interested in building monstrosities than keep a good workforce! Lose good workers and where will Bournemouth be then? "Down the Swany without a paddle!" Anneaa
  • Score: 8

9:09am Thu 10 Jul 14

DiggerRuss says...

Hessenford wrote:
dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
Perhaps if Beesley and his inexperienced cronies hadn't wasted millions on a surf reef that didn't work, the imax that should never have been built, thousands on a stupid sign across the spur road and fencing at the cooper dean roundabout he may have had enough in the kitty to pay a decent living wage.
Never mind going on about where extra funding will come from, if councils lived within their means instead of paying for hair brained schemes thought up by senile out of touch old duffers the funding would already be there.
The problem is the majority of council workers are low paid whilst the bosses suck up all the money and pension.

If you don't believe me just look at bournemouth uni bosses, they received 20% payrises whilst all staff have had 1% for 5 years.

There is more of a need for equality in these rises, ie if the boss gets 29 then everyone does.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]Perhaps if Beesley and his inexperienced cronies hadn't wasted millions on a surf reef that didn't work, the imax that should never have been built, thousands on a stupid sign across the spur road and fencing at the cooper dean roundabout he may have had enough in the kitty to pay a decent living wage. Never mind going on about where extra funding will come from, if councils lived within their means instead of paying for hair brained schemes thought up by senile out of touch old duffers the funding would already be there.[/p][/quote]The problem is the majority of council workers are low paid whilst the bosses suck up all the money and pension. If you don't believe me just look at bournemouth uni bosses, they received 20% payrises whilst all staff have had 1% for 5 years. There is more of a need for equality in these rises, ie if the boss gets 29 then everyone does. DiggerRuss
  • Score: 6

9:18am Thu 10 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

DiggerRuss wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
Perhaps if Beesley and his inexperienced cronies hadn't wasted millions on a surf reef that didn't work, the imax that should never have been built, thousands on a stupid sign across the spur road and fencing at the cooper dean roundabout he may have had enough in the kitty to pay a decent living wage.
Never mind going on about where extra funding will come from, if councils lived within their means instead of paying for hair brained schemes thought up by senile out of touch old duffers the funding would already be there.
The problem is the majority of council workers are low paid whilst the bosses suck up all the money and pension.

If you don't believe me just look at bournemouth uni bosses, they received 20% payrises whilst all staff have had 1% for 5 years.

There is more of a need for equality in these rises, ie if the boss gets 29 then everyone does.
I said yesterday that the problem started years ago when we moved away from flat rate rises to percentage rises which enable the rich to get richer and the poor to become poorer.
[quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]Perhaps if Beesley and his inexperienced cronies hadn't wasted millions on a surf reef that didn't work, the imax that should never have been built, thousands on a stupid sign across the spur road and fencing at the cooper dean roundabout he may have had enough in the kitty to pay a decent living wage. Never mind going on about where extra funding will come from, if councils lived within their means instead of paying for hair brained schemes thought up by senile out of touch old duffers the funding would already be there.[/p][/quote]The problem is the majority of council workers are low paid whilst the bosses suck up all the money and pension. If you don't believe me just look at bournemouth uni bosses, they received 20% payrises whilst all staff have had 1% for 5 years. There is more of a need for equality in these rises, ie if the boss gets 29 then everyone does.[/p][/quote]I said yesterday that the problem started years ago when we moved away from flat rate rises to percentage rises which enable the rich to get richer and the poor to become poorer. Hessenford
  • Score: 6

9:40am Thu 10 Jul 14

Carolyn43 says...

Hessenford wrote:
DiggerRuss wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
Perhaps if Beesley and his inexperienced cronies hadn't wasted millions on a surf reef that didn't work, the imax that should never have been built, thousands on a stupid sign across the spur road and fencing at the cooper dean roundabout he may have had enough in the kitty to pay a decent living wage.
Never mind going on about where extra funding will come from, if councils lived within their means instead of paying for hair brained schemes thought up by senile out of touch old duffers the funding would already be there.
The problem is the majority of council workers are low paid whilst the bosses suck up all the money and pension.

If you don't believe me just look at bournemouth uni bosses, they received 20% payrises whilst all staff have had 1% for 5 years.

There is more of a need for equality in these rises, ie if the boss gets 29 then everyone does.
I said yesterday that the problem started years ago when we moved away from flat rate rises to percentage rises which enable the rich to get richer and the poor to become poorer.
I agree totally - the cost of a loaf of bread is the same for everyone whether you earn £12,000 a year or £36,000 a year. Flat rate rises make more sense, except, of course, for those on high salaries who obviously prefer a percentage rise - after paying the extra for their loaf of bread they have money left over to spend on something else.

Nothing has changed for the last several hundred years - the rich get richer while the serfs have to be kept in their place. Discontent and uprisings are the result of educating the masses. Bet the rich wish they could turn the clock back.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DiggerRuss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]Perhaps if Beesley and his inexperienced cronies hadn't wasted millions on a surf reef that didn't work, the imax that should never have been built, thousands on a stupid sign across the spur road and fencing at the cooper dean roundabout he may have had enough in the kitty to pay a decent living wage. Never mind going on about where extra funding will come from, if councils lived within their means instead of paying for hair brained schemes thought up by senile out of touch old duffers the funding would already be there.[/p][/quote]The problem is the majority of council workers are low paid whilst the bosses suck up all the money and pension. If you don't believe me just look at bournemouth uni bosses, they received 20% payrises whilst all staff have had 1% for 5 years. There is more of a need for equality in these rises, ie if the boss gets 29 then everyone does.[/p][/quote]I said yesterday that the problem started years ago when we moved away from flat rate rises to percentage rises which enable the rich to get richer and the poor to become poorer.[/p][/quote]I agree totally - the cost of a loaf of bread is the same for everyone whether you earn £12,000 a year or £36,000 a year. Flat rate rises make more sense, except, of course, for those on high salaries who obviously prefer a percentage rise - after paying the extra for their loaf of bread they have money left over to spend on something else. Nothing has changed for the last several hundred years - the rich get richer while the serfs have to be kept in their place. Discontent and uprisings are the result of educating the masses. Bet the rich wish they could turn the clock back. Carolyn43
  • Score: 10

10:09am Thu 10 Jul 14

simong says...

Baysider wrote:
dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...
The simple fact is that public sector workers are still better paid than those in the private sector, so the idea that council tax should rise to cover salary increases is absurd. As for pensions, don't know how anyone in public sector can complain.
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...[/p][/quote]The simple fact is that public sector workers are still better paid than those in the private sector, so the idea that council tax should rise to cover salary increases is absurd. As for pensions, don't know how anyone in public sector can complain. simong
  • Score: -6

10:14am Thu 10 Jul 14

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

Poole Council should outsource their refuse collection service. Then their customers wouldn't be held to ransom when council employees go on strike and the bins would be collected over Christmas like Bournemouth and The New Forest.
Poole Council should outsource their refuse collection service. Then their customers wouldn't be held to ransom when council employees go on strike and the bins would be collected over Christmas like Bournemouth and The New Forest. Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: -4

10:22am Thu 10 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

simong wrote:
Baysider wrote:
dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...
The simple fact is that public sector workers are still better paid than those in the private sector, so the idea that council tax should rise to cover salary increases is absurd. As for pensions, don't know how anyone in public sector can complain.
I don't know where some on here get it into their head that all public sector workers receive massive pensions when they retire, front line workers do not get golden sky high pensions, that is reserved for the like of Beesley and the rest of his incompetent bunch of morons.
[quote][p][bold]simong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...[/p][/quote]The simple fact is that public sector workers are still better paid than those in the private sector, so the idea that council tax should rise to cover salary increases is absurd. As for pensions, don't know how anyone in public sector can complain.[/p][/quote]I don't know where some on here get it into their head that all public sector workers receive massive pensions when they retire, front line workers do not get golden sky high pensions, that is reserved for the like of Beesley and the rest of his incompetent bunch of morons. Hessenford
  • Score: 8

10:27am Thu 10 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

£750.000 paid to Bournemouth Cllrs in allowances for 2013/14 financial year. That equates to, on average, of 50 salaries, for the low paid worker. It is equivalent to 41 nurses salary. How can 54 Cllrs be happy with such large allowances for much negative work, and be led by a man who can only escalate the problem by stating that more job losses will be inevitable if pay rises were given. The man is a cretin, and does not deserve to lead the Council. Not even fit to lead a flock of ducks across a road.

Lets remind Mr. Beesley that he was put in place by a low majority who I might add only recognise the word Conservative on their voting forms, and do not look into the people themselves. However, he is reminded that he is supposedly in charge to help the people of Bournemouth, whether it is to gain more salary, help with pensions, at the same time making sure the services of the town do not fault on such days like this. This can only be done by listening, and acting accordingly, and not in the way that suits him and his pocket.
£750.000 paid to Bournemouth Cllrs in allowances for 2013/14 financial year. That equates to, on average, of 50 salaries, for the low paid worker. It is equivalent to 41 nurses salary. How can 54 Cllrs be happy with such large allowances for much negative work, and be led by a man who can only escalate the problem by stating that more job losses will be inevitable if pay rises were given. The man is a cretin, and does not deserve to lead the Council. Not even fit to lead a flock of ducks across a road. Lets remind Mr. Beesley that he was put in place by a low majority who I might add only recognise the word Conservative on their voting forms, and do not look into the people themselves. However, he is reminded that he is supposedly in charge to help the people of Bournemouth, whether it is to gain more salary, help with pensions, at the same time making sure the services of the town do not fault on such days like this. This can only be done by listening, and acting accordingly, and not in the way that suits him and his pocket. TheDistrict
  • Score: 10

10:27am Thu 10 Jul 14

Baysider says...

Hessenford wrote:
simong wrote:
Baysider wrote:
dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...
The simple fact is that public sector workers are still better paid than those in the private sector, so the idea that council tax should rise to cover salary increases is absurd. As for pensions, don't know how anyone in public sector can complain.
I don't know where some on here get it into their head that all public sector workers receive massive pensions when they retire, front line workers do not get golden sky high pensions, that is reserved for the like of Beesley and the rest of his incompetent bunch of morons.
Nor where all councils pay more than the private sector. For many, many jobs there is NO private sector equivalent!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...[/p][/quote]The simple fact is that public sector workers are still better paid than those in the private sector, so the idea that council tax should rise to cover salary increases is absurd. As for pensions, don't know how anyone in public sector can complain.[/p][/quote]I don't know where some on here get it into their head that all public sector workers receive massive pensions when they retire, front line workers do not get golden sky high pensions, that is reserved for the like of Beesley and the rest of his incompetent bunch of morons.[/p][/quote]Nor where all councils pay more than the private sector. For many, many jobs there is NO private sector equivalent! Baysider
  • Score: 2

10:42am Thu 10 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

simong wrote:
Baysider wrote:
dorsetjack wrote:
Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are.

Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises?

Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive.

I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source.

Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.
If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...
The simple fact is that public sector workers are still better paid than those in the private sector, so the idea that council tax should rise to cover salary increases is absurd. As for pensions, don't know how anyone in public sector can complain.
In March 2014 the office of national statistics said, " in April 2013 it was estimated that on average the pay of the public sector was between 1.3% and 2.4% lower than the private sector.
I know stats can be misleading but I have friends who work in both the private and public sector and both in office work, to be honest the difference is minimal in favor of the private sector, but hey ho who cares, the point really is that if the government has to make up your wage with any form of benefit then its obvious that your not being paid enough, scrapping millions in benefits would partly fund everyone being paid a fair living wage.
[quote][p][bold]simong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetjack[/bold] wrote: Well, perhaps if the Union were to explain to us where the extra funding will come from for pay rises and other benefits such as early retirement and protected pensions based on final salaries - not subject to variations in the stock market which private pensions are. Do they propose extra taxes (Council or Central), do they propose cutting funding from other parts of Government expenditure? Do they have an economic plan to raise extra revenue to fund pay rises? Public sector pay and benefits are outstripping that of the private sector. Pay freezes of the past 5 years in the private sector is the norm. Companies have had to stay in business by cutting staff numbers, being leaner and fitter to survive. I'm all for people getting a better standard of living, but please Union people, show me the maths. Money does just not materialise, it has to come from another source. Is this just another case of left wing unions making demands but not having an economic plan to able to argue a convincing case.[/p][/quote]If you read the story properly you'll note that half the funding for any rise would come from savings made by not having to pay 'in work' benefits to council workers. Leaving aside the moral issues of whether it's appropriate for our public sector to be paying their employees so little it has to be topped up by state benefits rather than paying everyone a living wage, we are halfway there already. Then, radical I know, how about it makes the bold decision to unfreeze council tax? This would not only cover any reasonable pay settlement but mean an end to the cuts we are seeing to our services. Don't know about you but ALL my household bills have gone up by much more than inflation in the last few years as have all the bills the council has to pay too. In the private sector these costs would be passed on to the customer of course but because of the political nature of council tax none of our councillors are prepared to grasp the nettle instead preferring to pretend you can get the same levels of service year after year from a decreasing pot. We aren't really even talking about much either, probably less than the cost of a cappuccino per household per week but there you are...[/p][/quote]The simple fact is that public sector workers are still better paid than those in the private sector, so the idea that council tax should rise to cover salary increases is absurd. As for pensions, don't know how anyone in public sector can complain.[/p][/quote]In March 2014 the office of national statistics said, " in April 2013 it was estimated that on average the pay of the public sector was between 1.3% and 2.4% lower than the private sector. I know stats can be misleading but I have friends who work in both the private and public sector and both in office work, to be honest the difference is minimal in favor of the private sector, but hey ho who cares, the point really is that if the government has to make up your wage with any form of benefit then its obvious that your not being paid enough, scrapping millions in benefits would partly fund everyone being paid a fair living wage. Hessenford
  • Score: 5

11:06am Thu 10 Jul 14

pauls55 says...

The government and establishment must be rubbing their hands with glee when they read comments like these and other forums where private and public sector workers are arguing against each other. This means they and their rich banker friends and financial backers can continue to get away with creating a low wage economy with workers encouraged to join the fight to the bottom. So although I agree with the reasons behind todays stikes they will not make any difference. The only way is for all ordinary working people whether public, private or self-employed to make the powers that be know that we need a fairer society for all, not just the priveleged few , especially as they were the ones ultimately responsible for the current economic hardships.
The government and establishment must be rubbing their hands with glee when they read comments like these and other forums where private and public sector workers are arguing against each other. This means they and their rich banker friends and financial backers can continue to get away with creating a low wage economy with workers encouraged to join the fight to the bottom. So although I agree with the reasons behind todays stikes they will not make any difference. The only way is for all ordinary working people whether public, private or self-employed to make the powers that be know that we need a fairer society for all, not just the priveleged few , especially as they were the ones ultimately responsible for the current economic hardships. pauls55
  • Score: 3

12:02pm Thu 10 Jul 14

BmthNewshound says...

Cllr Beesley, said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike......... Well Mr Beesley only a small proportion of the residents of Bournemouth backed your party at the last election so just what is your point.
.
Beesley also said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out........ Beesley the martyrCllr Beesley, said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike......... Well Mr Beesley only a small proportion of the residents of Bournemouth backed your party at the last election so just what is your point.
.
Beesley also said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out........ Beesley’s martyr act isn’t going to fool anyone. Perhaps if he was less dictatorial and not such an absolute control freak and allowed others to make decisions he wouldn’t have to put in the hours. If he is, as he appears to be claiming, he is working excessive hours that is in fact a sign of poor leadership and not a strength.
.
Beesley also said “Any increase in pay above inflation would have to be resourced from somewhere,” ..... this would be a valid statement if the Council didn’t appear to have any problem resourcing his vanity projects and expensive PR stunts – free concerts on the Imax site, Filers Carbon Quids and Car Club. If Beesley concentrated his efforts on providing core council services and less on jumping into bed with property developers then he perhaps he could claim that the council is too short of cash to pay workers a living wage.
Cllr Beesley, said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike......... Well Mr Beesley only a small proportion of the residents of Bournemouth backed your party at the last election so just what is your point. . Beesley also said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out........ Beesley the martyrCllr Beesley, said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike......... Well Mr Beesley only a small proportion of the residents of Bournemouth backed your party at the last election so just what is your point. . Beesley also said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out........ Beesley’s martyr act isn’t going to fool anyone. Perhaps if he was less dictatorial and not such an absolute control freak and allowed others to make decisions he wouldn’t have to put in the hours. If he is, as he appears to be claiming, he is working excessive hours that is in fact a sign of poor leadership and not a strength. . Beesley also said “Any increase in pay above inflation would have to be resourced from somewhere,” ..... this would be a valid statement if the Council didn’t appear to have any problem resourcing his vanity projects and expensive PR stunts – free concerts on the Imax site, Filers Carbon Quids and Car Club. If Beesley concentrated his efforts on providing core council services and less on jumping into bed with property developers then he perhaps he could claim that the council is too short of cash to pay workers a living wage. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 9

12:19pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

BmthNewshound wrote:
Cllr Beesley, said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike......... Well Mr Beesley only a small proportion of the residents of Bournemouth backed your party at the last election so just what is your point.
.
Beesley also said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out........ Beesley the martyrCllr Beesley, said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike......... Well Mr Beesley only a small proportion of the residents of Bournemouth backed your party at the last election so just what is your point.
.
Beesley also said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out........ Beesley’s martyr act isn’t going to fool anyone. Perhaps if he was less dictatorial and not such an absolute control freak and allowed others to make decisions he wouldn’t have to put in the hours. If he is, as he appears to be claiming, he is working excessive hours that is in fact a sign of poor leadership and not a strength.
.
Beesley also said “Any increase in pay above inflation would have to be resourced from somewhere,” ..... this would be a valid statement if the Council didn’t appear to have any problem resourcing his vanity projects and expensive PR stunts – free concerts on the Imax site, Filers Carbon Quids and Car Club. If Beesley concentrated his efforts on providing core council services and less on jumping into bed with property developers then he perhaps he could claim that the council is too short of cash to pay workers a living wage.
Very well put.
[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote: Cllr Beesley, said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike......... Well Mr Beesley only a small proportion of the residents of Bournemouth backed your party at the last election so just what is your point. . Beesley also said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out........ Beesley the martyrCllr Beesley, said only a small proportion of the workforce was backing the strike......... Well Mr Beesley only a small proportion of the residents of Bournemouth backed your party at the last election so just what is your point. . Beesley also said the union’s leadership did not know the hours he put into council work and “may be surprised” to find out........ Beesley’s martyr act isn’t going to fool anyone. Perhaps if he was less dictatorial and not such an absolute control freak and allowed others to make decisions he wouldn’t have to put in the hours. If he is, as he appears to be claiming, he is working excessive hours that is in fact a sign of poor leadership and not a strength. . Beesley also said “Any increase in pay above inflation would have to be resourced from somewhere,” ..... this would be a valid statement if the Council didn’t appear to have any problem resourcing his vanity projects and expensive PR stunts – free concerts on the Imax site, Filers Carbon Quids and Car Club. If Beesley concentrated his efforts on providing core council services and less on jumping into bed with property developers then he perhaps he could claim that the council is too short of cash to pay workers a living wage.[/p][/quote]Very well put. Hessenford
  • Score: 2

1:52pm Thu 10 Jul 14

Lord Elpus says...

So 'Cheesy Beesly' thinks that public sector workers don't need a payrise?
Just hope he doesn't break his 'expense signing' arm!!
So 'Cheesy Beesly' thinks that public sector workers don't need a payrise? Just hope he doesn't break his 'expense signing' arm!! Lord Elpus
  • Score: 7

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