WARRINGTON Borough Council and national joint council (NJC) unions have signed a groundbreaking agreement which sees a new, fair and equitable package of terms and conditions.
The TRP, or total rewards package, was accepted by members of the main local government unions, Unison and GMB, in a successful ballot.
Part of the package is a new pay and grading structure, resulting from a job evaluation exercise, which ensures a safe, equality proofed pay and grading structure for all staff. All relevant jobs have been evaluated through an open and transparent process in a consistent manner as part of a national agreement.
This week, all employees should have received their new grades along with any associated back pay. Many employees will see a pay increase (53%) and some remain at their current salary levels (31%)
But others (16%) will see a salary decrease that is protected until March 31, 2011.
Other elements of the TRP package, implemented on December 1, include improved flexible working arrangements and a range of health, well being and green travel initiatives that seeks to encourage healthier lifestyles and reduce carbon emissions.
Rachel Robins, the council’s director of People and Improvement said: “Years of planning, legal considerations and work with the unions has meant that job evaluation has been a long and occasionally frustrating process for everyone. It is thanks to the hard work from all sides to make sure that the Total Reward Package is right for the council, trade unions and for our staff. We are the only authority in the region to have successfully negotiated a package that has been accepted by Trade Union members.”
A number of services are in place for those staff who require support during the implementation process, including counselling, general advice and support but also more formal assistance through Guaranteed Interview and Train to Change schemes. The Trade Unions are also available to offer support to their members during the implementation and appeals process.
Coun Keith Bland, deputy leader of the council, said: “I would like to say a big thank you to the unions and council officers for all of their commitment and hard work in making this happen.”
WARRINGTON Borough Council and national joint council (NJC) unions have
signed a groundbreaking agreement which sees a new, fair and equitable
package of terms and conditions.
Council's pay deal with unions
1717 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
17 Comments
What a load of politically correct nonsense which as usual will see the council tax payer out of pocket. 53% of people get a pay rise! while only 16% get a drop…. maybe they should have started at a level where no one gets a rise and see if they were as happy with the outcomes then. These people should be grateful they still have a bloody job as well as their protected pension pots.
Oh dear Baz, nothing ever pleases you.
Well unless you are one of the 53% who are getting a pay rise SS; it shouldn’t please you either because we are paying for it!
Baz..
this will make you even more angry, the lucky people who get a pay rise will have it backdated to April 2008. The unfortunate ones who get a paycut are no doubt on a low wage already and the threat of losing their jobs and the ones who are highly paid will get paid even more.
Why should a pay rise be backdated 20 months !!!!!!!
Dismayed…
employees get back dated pay to when the consultation/job evaluation started and in some cases well deserved. But I am sure they will be job cuts to pay for the 53%.
Aview, without knowing who is paid what and what percentage the 53% makes up of high or low earners; I can’t really comment, but the fact that it is to be backdated IS ridiculous. Surely the people of the town who pay their poll taxes should be asked if we want to fund this or whether job cuts should pay for it. Personally, I don’t want to fund a 20 month backdated pay rise and think the ones who get it should be paid for by cuts to staff and not services. Maybe these council employees who are going to be better off would like to share some of their new found wealth with me. I haven’t had a payrise for 5 years, but then again I work for myself and only work 100 hours a week instead of their monstrously high 37 (plus a bit of flexy of course)
You pay what the people of Warrington have voted for.
If you don’t like the decisions being made cast your vote at the next elections and keep your fingers crossed everyone votes the same way as you!
I would disagree GOM. I and no doubt the majority of voters in the town did not vote to give 53% of its council employees a pay rise. Nor were we told any of this was even a possibility. It is yet another example of the powers that be taking the taxpayers for a cash cow to pay for their mistakes and fancy dan schemes
Baz…
I think that the job evaluation was brought into place to provide staff with the appropriate salary, bringing their wages inline with other authorities and the private sector. However I have heard on the grapvine that the council may be cutting the workforce by 20 percent, this figure/rumour may be wrong but I am sure someone will correct me?
That may be the case, but When an employee takes a job at say Crosfields on £20,000 a year, he doesn’t then demand or expect the £25,000 a year that the bloke from Solvay is on does he? An appropriate salary is the one that was agreed when the job was given. Just because a street cleaner in London is on £5,000 more than in Warrington should have nothing to do with it. This is yet another example of Labour waste and nonsense. This doesn’t happen in the private sector and it shouldn’t happen in the public sector (but it does because their money isn’t their own so they are always more than willing to jump on one politically correct bandwagon after another)
Baz…
I think this is a government directive and the WBC are just righting the wrongs?.
Baz,
You don’t know much about industry. When negotiating salaries/wages,both management and employees look at the rest of the chemical industry and fight their corner accordingly.
You are living in the wrong era. The days of the mill owner are long gone. People are entitled to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. How do you decide what your employees get paid? Do you pay them the going rate or minimum wage?
Perhaps you need to get involved in council matters or even become a councillor, then your input “might” stop you having to pay for the work that gets done.
Also, back-dated pay is usually the carrot to get these things passed.
As for your pay rise. You obviously must be taking a good screw from your company and don’t need one.
Exactly. When negotiating salaries other factors are taken into account in the private sector. What I do not expect is to have to backdate a pay rise for 53% of staff over 20 months because some politically correct namby pamby in Brussels or Westminster decide it would be a good idea. Please don’t try and lecture me on business SS, my staff have just last month had an 8% pay rise (that’s eight percent) because the company has made more money this year than the previous three or four. There is a Christmas bonus and a Christmas booze up all paid for and their rate was already higher than comparable firms in the area so I am not against reward at all. I am against the waste of public money and the fact that the council/government see the public as a never ending revenue stream to pay for whatever fanciful nonsense they come up with next. In the middle of a recession, this is not what we should be doing. As for a good screw, no not really, I know I don’t earn anywhere near the directors of comparable companies; I just enjoy not having a boss!!
I work for the council in a local school in a non-teaching role (at slightly above the minimum wage) and I have benefited from a small wage increase following the re-grading – however, I would point out that what the re-grading has done is standardise wages across the council. The same job in 6 different schools could be padi entirely differently so the new agreement ensures that everyone doing the same job gets the same wage. Surely this is only fair?
But would it have been equally as fair to put everyone on the lowest rate paid across say the 6 schools? I see how you might see it as being fair to you, it surely isn’t fair on the percentage of staff who get a pay cut and not fair on those who may well lose their jobs to pay for this and certainly not fair on the tax payers who have to also fund the extra cash. So what next, are the union now going to find the highest paid school dinner lady in the country and demand that every dinner lady is now paid the same to make it fair? Sorry, but I don’t think it is fair at all
Baz…
As a guesstimate, I reckon there is approx’ 8000 people work for WBC, 53 percent of that equals 4240 people, it is possible on average that the employees will get back pay of £1500 each on top of the wage increase they will receive, that would equate to the Council paying £6,360,000, the only down side of this must be that if the Council are trying to save money and be made to cut say 20 percent of the workforce to pay for the wage increase, the very people with a payrise may lose their jobs to balance the Council budget? Double edge sword?