Jo,
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Sorry John - the article can be seen from the front page of the Kent
> website at www.kent.gov.uk. It's still there.
On my first quick reading I missed this in the KCC 'News' item.
"There is no reduction in the total staffing budget and over the last
five years the revenue budget for day to day running of the libraries had
increased by 40 per cent. Twenty four new posts will be created, the
vast majority of which will be staff serving the public on the
front-line."
The important bits are:
"There is no reduction in the total staffing budget", ie, there is no
increase in the total staffing budget.
and
"Twenty four new posts will be created"
So with the same staffing budget they intend to employ 24 more staff,
therefore the money paid per employee must fall. So KCC accept they need
more staff to deliver an improved service but can't afford to pay for it
so they plan to pay the existing staff less in order to employ the new
staff. Effectively they are getting the existing staff to pay the costs of
improving the service.
How do they get away with this? They reorganise the service and regrade
the existing jobs down. The existing staff have the choice of accepting
a regraded post even if it pays less (and probably involves much if not
all of the same work) or losing their jobs.
This approach is appearing all over the public services. The public want
better services, the main cost of these services is usually the staff
budget so it is the staff's fault (so goes the logic) there is no money to
improve these services. It is not the tax payers' fault by not wanting to
pay more taxes, nor is it the councillors' or senior managers' fault by
not using the money they have more efficiently but it is the staff's fault
because they want a decent wage for their work and skills.
Regards,
John Smith,
University of Kent, UK.
|