WARRINGTON Borough Council is seeking to change the terms and conditions of its 8,000 strong workforce to generate savings of more than £3.3m to help reduce the risk of compulsory redundancies.
The aim is to consult with employees and Trade Unions but if agreement can not be reached officers are seeking authority to press ahead with the changes, despite fears of strike action, poor staff morale and possible legal action.
The council is already behind with its bid to save £2m this year by modernising employees terms and conditions and will now have to look at making further savings for next year.
In a report to next Monday’s Executive Board members are being asked to consider a 10 point plan for wide ranging changes to employment contracts.
These include removal of essential car users allowance, to save an estimated £530,000 a year, a reduction in mileage rates to save £130,000, not paying for the first three days of sickness to save £650,000, removal of enhanced redundancy packages, which could save up to £998,000, reducing overtime rates, saving around £260,000 and
reducing pay protection to staff who are redeployed, from two years to one, saving £185,000.
Promising a “full, open and transparent consultation”, Cllr Mike Hannon, deputy leader of the council, (pictured right) said proposals were in place to consult all employees and the trade unions on a review of contractual terms and conditions.
He added: “We have already approved a number of measures designed to make the council more efficient and to focus our spending on those public services that residents tell us matter the most to them. But in order to balance the books, we need to look at ways to reduce the cost of our workforce.
“A series of options will be presented to the Executive Board and if approved, we will then embark on a wide-ranging consultation on all options. We will be encouraging all employees to find out more about what these options might mean for them and I will be answering questions directly in a series of staff workshops and taking feedback before we make any decisions.
“We are committed to handling any consultation exercise in a totally open and transparent fashion. We have promised we will do everything possible to avoid compulsory redundancies and I know staff will want to add to the proposals already on the table to help us all find ways of saving money – money which we can then put back into the community by delivering high quality services.”
The consultation is expected to start at the end of this month and will last 90 days. It is anticipated any changes to terms and conditions would be introduced at the start of the next financial year subject to approval by the executive board and full council.
A number of other local authorities have already, or are considering implementing similar changes.
Like many other councils Warrington faces unprecedented financial challenges to ensure it is sustainable and can provide high quality services to residents
The council need to make £50m savings over the next three years, including £22m in this financial year.
21 Comments
You can’t do this to the general worforce whilst paying the Chief Executive and her Deputy 9% increase. Where is the fairness in that? Has the government not asked CE’s to set an example by taking a pay cut?
Wouldn’t it have been better if Mr Hannon had told the workforce before telling us? Will he also be investigating the reduction in the number of councillors. I am sure we could manage just as well (or poorly) after a 50% reduction. One councillor per ward is enough.
well lets look at Cllr Terry O’Neill – thousands upon thousands of pounds each and every year on mileage and subsistence- Cllrs should not get expenses
Anyway i thought only £2 million needed to be saved – so Labour are hurting us more once again
The shame of it is, that it looks like workers who were hit the hardest in the last consultation are going to be the ones to suffer again. Anyone who works outside of the usual Monday-Friday, flexitime office hours type jobs will be most likely be hit by cuts. They no longer want to pay extra for weekend working. They want to cut the enhancement they receive for working outside of the normal office hours (before 7.00am and after 7.00pm). I’m sure, given the option, most of these people would choose not to have to work weekends, bank holidays and unsociable hours but don’t have the choice.
Surely they should be cutting what is not necessary, and I agree with Eagle that at least 50% of councillors could go. They should then work on the premise that we’re all in it together and maybe cut everyones pay by 1-2%. It would be unpopular with those who would otherwise stand to lose nothing but fairer than the same employees being targeted over and over.
Labour are defering action so the more they drag things on the worse the picture will get – they are failing staff they are failing residents they have failed WARRINGTON AGAIN!
Labour plan to consult then if they don’t like the outcome they will push ahead with the changes regardless!!! Am I missing something here but this is the LABOUR group, who should be protecting and respecting the workforce. Maybe they need to work smarter, look further than the ends of their noses, money can be saved in other ways surely, top mangement springs to mind and their substantial pay! LABOUR – I think not, its a disgrace.
We could easily manage a 50% cut in Latchford West as we only have one that does anything.
That, unfortunately, is the plan. If the employees don’t agree if what is being ‘offered’ they will be sacked and made to sign new contracts. Unfortunately for the people involved, the council know that jobs, at present, are hard to come by so know that ultimately the staff will have no choice but to sign contracts with the new T&C’s or face unemployment. This additional pay cut, on top of 2 years of pay freezes and another to follow are beyond unfair when we hear about pay rises to the executives but then t is far easier to hurt the little man at the bottom who is struggling on less than £20k pa than hitting the likes of executives on £200k pa.
With regards to expenses, surely they can and should only be claimed if they have been incurred on Council business. Councillors like employees should, quite rightly, be able to claim expenses if they have incurred out of pocket costs in carrying out their legitimate duties.
You might well be right Eagle that one councillor per ward is enough, however the number of councillors for each local authority is decided by the independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Mr Hannon has no role in deciding those numbers.
It’s the expenses/allowances that cost a fortune. Almost £8k just for being a councillor. Add in travel, mileage, telephones etc and it adds up to a lot of money. It’s a lot of out of pocket expenses! In some cases it equates to full time pay for a part time job. In the year 2010-2011 councillor Ian Marks received just short of £29k in allowances and several others received more than £20k! I’m sure some councillors earn every penny but I doubt this applies in every case. I’m sure some reductions could be made there.
The EXEC Board should look at the salary Diane Terris and Andy Farrel are paid before hitting the workforce again
It’s not just about fairness either. When you have 14 employees on six figure salaries – with a couple earning over 200,000 a year – many of whom are enjoying pay rises double the rate of inflation and no doubt with vast pensions and other benefits, a huge chunk of this saving could be made at the top of the organisation. The chances of that happening are clearly zero because the executives, cheered on by councillors would rather cut front line services than ask the likes of the Chief Exec to refuse huge pay rises. About time the councillors in this town started kicking off on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent rather than helping to feather the nests of a handful of people.
Strange how the councillors that all flocked to write tributes to Colin Oliver; who sadly passed away recently suddenly don’t get involved when it is a story that may be a little too close to home…..Cllr Kevin Reynolds, Cllr Keith Gleave, Cllr Tony higgins, Ex Cllr Sharon Wilson, Cllr Geoff Settle, Cllr Veronica Hudson, Cllr Bob Barr all posted in tribute to Colin (and rightly so) unfortunately they stay very quiet when other important matters need to be explained or discussed…..
I agree entirely. Where are the councillors asking why executive pay is not being addressed in the same way as budgets for front line staff?
Baz – as you know I’m always happy to contribute where and when I can. You will also be happy to know that I have contact Jason Horan the Unison Trade Union Rep at the Council last week in respect to T+C.
One area I do feel strong about is the level of expenses paid out to Councillors and I do feel that more indepth justification should be required before they are allowed.
Just look back over the past three years and work out the % of the total paid out to councillors because its staggering. Now if thats not banging my colours to the mast Baz then I don’t know what is?
And what are you doing about the obscene level of executive pay which just keeps going up and up while everybody else is facing cuts and losing jobs?
From Cllr Hannon’s comments it looks like this has already been agreed, even before the report goes to the executive board.
How ironic that Cllr Patel has his name on the paper. If I remember rightly he was very vocal about the purchase of ipads and ipods when in opposition.Has he managed to save money by stopping the purchase of any more?
I think it’s safe to assume that the answer to this is ‘nothing’. So there we have it. Cuts to front line services and pay for front line staff. Increases at the top for people who are already overpaid. All waved through by our supposed elected representatives. And politicians wonder why we are all so cynical.
Well done Councillor Reynolds for having the guts to comment on here, but he can’t change things alone, lets hope the executive board members, who are all LABOUR, have the guts to speak out next week and dont just give the rubber stamps to the proposals like nodding dogs, happily taking allowances for challenging nothing!!!!!!!!
Fair play Kevin….. but what about the obscene rises to the Chief Executives salary? Why did that get the OK when "ordinary" council employees are being sacked and threatened with redundancy. I was at the hospital last night and a former manager of one of the leisure centres is now working on the wards after 30+ years of loyal council service….. It all stinks to me