Jump to content

33 Million of Cost/Savings Per Annum


icepick239
 Share

Recommended Posts

An explanation as to why emergency lighting, etc in a council building has to be tested on a Saturday - on overtime? and why the black bags were delivered by 2 men in a council van on a holiday (today) presumably on overtime too would be a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuts in the council wage bill (and expense claims) from the top down would be my preferred option.

 

I wonder who you could force to do the jobs. I sorta wonder why you think folk will do a better job on less money? I also wonder how you would attract those who want to do a good job with lower than average remunerations.

I am never suprised that if there are cuts to be made, the easy option is hit first, which then becomes a problem later. There are many dedicated staff and officers who have already had to face an uncertain future, now you want to victimise them more, rather than buy your own bin bags and dog crap bags. Yet you no doubt will still complain if you get your way, you will complain about the deterioration of services, the privateers coming in to do the jobs at a fraction of the wage paid, yet charge nearly as much, guess what, the council will still be liable for those services, farming them out to those who will pay the staff less will not negate the council from their duties, and they will still be a need to administer it. S.I.C. (Serco Islands Council) could be a reality, or you could have all you hands tied by such contracts as the One Connect and Bt Connect, Oracle who are now taking over some of the delegated decisions and running the public life.

How would saving a few hundred thousand save the millions of pounds the GOVs are with holding. There is little other employment, councils have a social responsibility to look after all, not those who just shout loudest.

 

If you think an administration will not look at the pay gap and adjust it all the way down, you could be then called deluded.

 

Folk are already worried about the care they are getting and how long it will last at this level. Folk are working hard to fight this and seek fairness for those service users and the staff who look after them so well in such difficult and uncertain times. Telling them you want to cut their pay even more is not really the right thing to do.

 

Now, if you had said the pay of those providing a social care service or a lifeline service be ring fenced and managers and officers over a certain grade should be looked at, I can somewhat agree, but you will have to fight national agreements, unions and other professional bodies to force your will upon these folks.

 

Cuts to councillors expenses. I do have some thoughts on that. They should all get annual travel warrants for bus and ferry or the equivalent in cash for attending Lerwick meetings. Should however a disabled councillor be stopped from attending because of their disability? It was the people who put them there, it was a competition of popularity. So the voters are as much culpable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut.!!!!!!

Councillors £489,100.64 fabricated of expenses!

That will keep some winter roads gritted.

Much higher importance than any council expenses

They can take sandwiches and buses like everyone else

In addition, pay ferry fairs. Plane tickets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuts in the council wage bill (and expense claims) from the top down would be my preferred option.

 

I agree.

 

Lets say, for instance, that the SIC needs to make 20% of across the board cuts, then the first thing, before anything else is even discussed, should be a 20% wages cut for the top 20% of council employees.

 

Only when those making the cuts have demonstrated that they are willing to proportionately share the pain, can they have the moral authority to impose that pain.

 

(Similarly, if the pain means job cuts, then it must start with cuts at the top, and work it's way down, never bottom up.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuts in the council wage bill (and expense claims) from the top down would be my preferred option.

 

I agree.

 

Lets say, for instance, that the SIC needs to make 20% of across the board cuts, then the first thing, before anything else is even discussed, should be a 20% wages cut for the top 20% of council employees.

 

Only when those making the cuts have demonstrated that they are willing to proportionately share the pain, can they have the moral authority to impose that pain.

 

:lik:

 

(Similarly, if the pain means job cuts, then it must start with cuts at the top, and work it's way down, never bottom up.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the council are asking again for suggestions of saving cash, you can put your name to these suggestions folk have made here. It would be good if their was some thought put to he suggestions. Where the savings will be made, how the saving would impact on other series and other service users. How long would the savings come to bear fruit. What will the public do without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the council are asking again for suggestions of saving cash, you can put your name to these suggestions folk have made here. It would be good if their was some thought put to he suggestions. Where the savings will be made, how the saving would impact on other series and other service users. How long would the savings come to bear fruit. What will the public do without.

 

I can't help but wonder, especially after reading the press reports, if the new Councillors have actually had the chance to fully digest the recommendations concerning the cuts put before them, presumably by SIC Heads of Departments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any reporting that the new Councillors have met yet apart from one initial meeting concerning appointments of Committee Members and the like. Could this therefore be a scenario whereby the Heads of Department/Chief Executive are putting pressure on the newly formed Council to approve the cuts decided by the outgoing Councillors?

 

Could it also be the case that other cuts/savings were mentioned to the press but the press chose to report only certain items for the sake of headlines?

 

In essence, I wasn't aware that the new Councillors had voted on these proposed cuts/savings and in the spirit of democracy, could at least do so before asking for public opinion on the same. After all, there is nothing to stop them from voting on them and coming up with new measures, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this therefore be a scenario whereby the Heads of Department/Chief Executive are putting pressure on the newly formed Council to approve the cuts decided by the outgoing Councillors?

 

Sort of, and not the heads of departments, but the previous council. These (currently being reported) are the first batch of savings from the service reviews initiated by the outgoing councilors. It will be up to the new members to decide which go ahead.

 

This will, IMO, be interesting for two reasons; many councilors got in by saying "we will not close schools" or "gritting will not be cut" - if they stick to their promises they will soon come unstuck as the savings have to be made somewhere.

 

Secondly, the proposals are not all on the table at the same time, so how can they possibly make a balanced decision?

 

Could it also be the case that other cuts/savings were mentioned to the press but the press chose to report only certain items for the sake of headlines?

 

Very possibly. Unfortunately the press has been proven to take the tabloid route more and more in recent times. One can compare official press releases via the council website however.

 

Of course I don't know the full details, but one would assume that in this exercise each department has been told what they have to save to meet the budget agreed.

 

Each department employs qualified people who understand what is required legally by their service, and how things operate in detail.

 

Therefore, In most cases one would think it best to leave it up to those qualified to make the decision as to what has to go. This is a financial exercise, not a political one.

 

The only exceptions would be in cases like ferries where options should be presented and the option chosen by the majority of service users upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to use the Times and the News as a true and correct report of council business then folk will always have all the facts kept from them. There are a couple of other ways, ask your councillor or go look for your self. During the elections, you voted someone to be your delegate and to act on your behalf. If you did not get your choice, get the ones that we deemed worthy to get on with their ward duties and inteact with the residents in the ward. The Times will report what suits the Times and the News amends its mistakes without an edit note.

Oh, the other way is to listen to the halve truths told by thoe who have just relied on the papers and continue ther agenda.

Ooops, forgot some of the suggestions her on Shetlink. Always wise, measued and to the point. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the council are asking again for suggestions of saving cash, you can put your name to these suggestions folk have made here.

 

Given 1 in 3 employed folk in Shetland are directly employed by the Council, and probably many of the 2nd of the 3 people are reliant on the Council for income through supporting services, it's turkey's voting for Christmas.

 

How about shelving the Island allowance - that was originally introduced to stop the oil industry poaching council staff in the 70's. I do appreciate it costs more to live in Shetland, but isn't it unfair to folk who aren't employed by the council? - surely some of the high costs for living in Shetland are driven by having 30% of the employed population on a higher than typical local wage?

 

Where does the savings come from in reducing these services? Surely reducing ferry services isn't going to be a huge saving other than the fuel bill? Or is a reduction in services just a code word for job cuts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about shelving the Island allowance - that was originally introduced to stop the oil industry poaching council staff in the 70's.

 

No it wasn't. There was a 'construction period' allowance paid for that purpose which has long since gone. The Island allowance is, I believe, a national agreement paid to help offset the higher cost of living. It is not unique to the islands. I believe there is also a London weighting allowance paid to reflect the higher cost of living there.

 

That said, i'm not arguing against scrapping it! Just clarifying the position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ That's how I understand it too. It was extensively debated at the time of the single status negotiations.

 

Something not mentioned so far but worth bearing in mind is that many council services are funded via central government, so they can only be cut so far and still be a saving to the council. Cut them too far and the council will simply get less money for that budget from the government for the next year.

 

So, it might seem like a saving not to issue bin bags, but if the money for that actually comes from elsewhere, it cuts the service but doesn't save the council anything.

 

The issue of all cuts being considered together is a vital one IMO.

 

Take gritting as an example, if it is decided not to grit side roads, it will certainly save money from that budget, however if that means that Social Work then has to transport an elderly resident and look after them for a few days at a time in a care center because it isn't possible for a home help to visit morning and night, then that will cost far more than the small amount saved on gritting.

 

There are many similar cases of course, which I hope will all be taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...