ANGRY trade union leaders have slammed Warrington Borough Council’s refusal to cut spending on Mayoral allowances.
The council voted unanimously to retain the current Mayoral allowances despite a recommendation by the independent remuneration panel cut the allowances of the Deputy Mayor, the Mayoress and the Deputy Mayoress by a total of £5,705.
The panel’s recommendations would have seen the Deputy Mayor’s allowance reduced from £5,004 to £3,002, the Mayoress’ from £4,003 to £2,002 and the Deputy Mayoress’ from £3,202 to £1,500.
Representatives of the Town Hall unions, UNISON and GMB were present at the meeting and say they “sat in amazement.”
The independent panel recommended that councillors’ allowances were frozen for another year and this was accepted by the council and welcomed by the unions.
But the panel’s recommendation that the allowances of the Deputy Mayor, Mayoress and Deputy Mayoress be cut were voted down unanimously after the present Mayor, Cllr Mike Biggin, proposed that the existing Mayoral allowances should be retained.
The panel had recommended the Mayor’s own allowance of £15,012 should be retained.
Union bosses believed all the Mayoral allowances should have been reduced.
Bob Pinnock, GMB branch secretary said: ” The first consideration in accepting a Mayoral position should not be the financial recompense attached to the privilege. Councillors already receive an allowance of £7,911 per year for being elected as councillor, plus expenses and additional allowances for special responsibility.”
Jason Horan, UNISON joint branch secretary said: “What ensued from the full council meeting is an absolute disgrace. Our members are fighting for survival in a tough economic climate where they are faced with an ongoing pay freeze, continuous threat of job losses and increasing rise of utility bills. This is a typical example of councillors lining their own pockets instead of considering the overall council’s financial picture and putting the employees first.”
Union anger over Mayoral allowances
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
And no doubt, if that was a union job, they would be claiming all sorts of allowances for the un-social hours, inconvenience and the impact on family life.
Haven’t Councillor’s allowances been frozen for years? The Mayor is the leading citizen and they put in a lot of work during their year of office. I don’t think it is unreasonable to recognise that in their allowances. The big shindig has gone and saved some cash – doesn’t the Mayoralty deserve some standing in the town?
How many UNISON and GMB union reps do Warrington council tax payers currently pay for while receiving no work in return?
When the unions pay their own way, then they can criticise how others spend money!
Maybe Warrington Borough Council should be slammed for using taxpayers’ money to fund these union officials.
They would be going on strike demanding substantially more money.
Unison gets free rent and facilities using town hall office space as well. You don’t hear them spouting about this though.or the lack of critisism about the previous lib/dem conservative administration
Page 59 of the following link:
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/unionfunding2011.pdf
It is a substantial 6 figure number and doesn’t include the cost of facilities provided which I guess would probably double the figure. Give me a Mayor and Deputy Mayor anytime over a union official, they are cerainly a lot cheaper.
It is not a job but a privelage to be recognised as the first citizen in addition to a payment at taxpayer expense of councillor position. The point is if no allowance existed for the privelage of being mayor would any councillor be interested? Let us also consider the fact that the next mayor will be a labour councillor.
Haven’t WBC employees had theire pay frozen for years.After all they put a lot of work in during not one but a lifetime of office and delivery of front line service.The shindig continues and cash is being wasted not saved as can be seen by the decision to continue payment on top of payment to councillors when front line staff are faced with no job.Do the workers not deserve some standing when councillors prioritise there own take home pay.
You should be slammed strawbs. A line exists between ignorange and arrogance relevant to fact. Clearly you meet both criteria.
I bet you support the Monarchy despite the cost to the taxpayers of our country when real people are in fear of already have or never had the opportunity to lifetime employment.
Ignorance is bliss Inky. Arrogance is being a councillor for all the wrong reasons!!
The Labour administration as previous administrations receive free town hall office space and facilities and what are your issues to criticise the previous administration? I hear you spouting and request you put up shut up or admit you are a representative of an alledged political party in Warrington.
Judging by the comments on here, this particular story has backfired on the unions a bit hasn’t it!
Obviously these comments are submitted by councillors who wish to hide behind acronyms and slate the unions because they have unearthed factual content and respond with blithering fiction to mask the contant of the article. I have spoken to my Trade Union representatives and rest assured all they get for undertaking the role is there sunstantive salary irrelevant of how many hours they work. They do not get any overtime for the excessive hours they put in to representing there members. Rest assured Inky Pete you obviously have no knowledge of how much time my representatives put in to representing members of the union. Also why should the unions line council coffers out of members subscriptions by paying towards accomodation. Shouldnt union subs be used for building campaings and representing members.
Perhaps people should stick to fact and not fiction like the Trade Unions.
If you’d read any of my comments on stories or the forum over the past years and months you’d know that I am most definitely NOT a councillor – and am, in fact, always ready to criticise them.
The FACT is that WBC are paying the salaries of staff who are union reps and allowing them to spend fully paid time away from their staff duties to undertake union business. Across all the unions representing members within WBC this totals the full-time equivalent of 5 staff members, which costs us council tax payers in excess of £125,000 per year.
Surely these reps should be paid for out of the union members subs? Surely the office accomodation and other facilities they use should also be paid for out union members subs?
Why SHOULD council tax payers pay for the union representation of WBC staff?????
DEEEERRRRRRRRR. Wrong again inky pete, in actual fact there are 3 staff members allocated across two unions. Think its about time you put up and shut up as you are either fed the wrong information or just blatantly misleading the public for your own agenda! Also why should council tax payers pay for councillors to do a role they also volunteer for that is not a paid job, they either have full time jobs of there own or nice attractive pensions.