18,000 hours of free labour by convicts in Brighton and Hove (From The Argus)

Well i for one think its great that crims have to work for free...BUT, will the savings be passed on by reducing Council Tax....I dont think so somehow, not from a council which penny pinches on essential services, earns £1000's from parking fines, and gives permanent staff gold plated pensions!! I dont blame the staff who receive this benefit, but the policy which councillors backed on our collective behalf...

Is councillor Morgan insane or just out of touch? Does he think that community service should not include jobs that need to be done? Perhaps they should be employed moving pebbles from one end of the beach to the other and then back again! The only problem I can see with this is that the criminals doing community service should be wearing bright pink coveralls so we can all see when someone is paying their dues to society. If using criminals to do labour intensive and low skilled work helps keep the council's overtime and staff bill down, reducing council tax or allowing fewer cuts to front line services, I'm all in favour. Just shows the mentality of our former council leaders.....

I have to know. How much would a pension have to be to meet your definition "gold plated", and how many council staff do you think are getting it.

A clue to get you started - the average local government pension is £3800 pa.

Everyone thinks it's a good idea in principle to get convicts working. But they tend to think it is less of a good idea when they get a letter attached to a P45 saying "we've now got prisoners to do your job so we're letting you go. Hope that's OK"

I think that's the point that's being made.

nomates wrote:
Is councillor Morgan insane or just out of touch? Does he think that community service should not include jobs that need to be done? Perhaps they should be employed moving pebbles from one end of the beach to the other and then back again! The only problem I can see with this is that the criminals doing community service should be wearing bright pink coveralls so we can all see when someone is paying their dues to society. If using criminals to do labour intensive and low skilled work helps keep the council's overtime and staff bill down, reducing council tax or allowing fewer cuts to front line services, I'm all in favour. Just shows the mentality of our former council leaders.....

Councillor Morgan seems to be the new "rent-a-quote" for the Argus - the role that used to be filled by Gill Mitchell...

Average pension £3800 pa. What a load of rubbish.

FINAL SALARY PENSIONS AFTER 30 YEARS OF SERVICE ARE TYPICALLY WORTH 1/2 OF YOUR FINAL SALARY - CURRENT PENSION COSTS TO THE COUNCIL ARE SOME 20% + OF YOUR SALARY SO IF ON AVERAGE SAY 11,000 STAFF ON AN AVERAGE OF £25K EACH MEANS THE COUNCIL ARER PAYING £55MILLION PER YEAR TOWARDS THE PENSION FUND. FACT AS IM A PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTANT - PS MINE IS A LOT MORE AS IS MY SALARY XXX

Andy R wrote:
I have to know. How much would a pension have to be to meet your definition "gold plated", and how many council staff do you think are getting it. A clue to get you started - the average local government pension is £3800 pa. Everyone thinks it's a good idea in principle to get convicts working. But they tend to think it is less of a good idea when they get a letter attached to a P45 saying "we've now got prisoners to do your job so we're letting you go. Hope that's OK" I think that's the point that's being made.

"How much would a pension have to be to meet your definition "gold plated", and how many council staff do you think are getting it."

The answer to the first part of your question is £500,000, and the answer to the second part is 1 person - Mr McCarthy.
Just how many people's jobs do you think this totally unnecessary, ex gratia payout may have cost? And how many legitimate pensions of £3800 could you pay with it?

Incidentally, I'm all for convicts working in the community for nothing, and I also like nomates idea of the bright pink overalls....

and wait until the tories get in - mr 10% budget cut - that will come from reducing grants to councils and will mean 2,000,000 claiming job seekers allowence will have to work for their state handouts - recession to come as no jobs as the unemployed / umemployable will be doing them

Andy R wrote:
I have to know. How much would a pension have to be to meet your definition "gold plated", and how many council staff do you think are getting it.

A clue to get you started - the average local government pension is £3800 pa.

Everyone thinks it's a good idea in principle to get convicts working. But they tend to think it is less of a good idea when they get a letter attached to a P45 saying "we've now got prisoners to do your job so we're letting you go. Hope that's OK"

I think that's the point that's being made.

Andy..would i be right in saying that you are a council employee? I have never rubbished council employees at the sharp end...just the fat cats in the offices who seem untouchable when it comes to cut in wages and jobs. i support the front line workers who actually try to deliver the services we pay for.

Do you not agree that there has been quite a bit of 'empire building' by council officers since unification of Brighton and Hove?
Perhaps we might get more of what we pay for if a lot of dead wood was pruned in the offices....

BrightonBoy wrote:
Average pension £3800 pa. What a load of rubbish. FINAL SALARY PENSIONS AFTER 30 YEARS OF SERVICE ARE TYPICALLY WORTH 1/2 OF YOUR FINAL SALARY - CURRENT PENSION COSTS TO THE COUNCIL ARE SOME 20% + OF YOUR SALARY SO IF ON AVERAGE SAY 11,000 STAFF ON AN AVERAGE OF £25K EACH MEANS THE COUNCIL ARER PAYING £55MILLION PER YEAR TOWARDS THE PENSION FUND. FACT AS IM A PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTANT - PS MINE IS A LOT MORE AS IS MY SALARY XXX

Yes sorry, I was slightly out. The figure is £4000, according the the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. You should let you professional body know you think their figures are "rubbish".

I used to work at BHCC in the finance section - was gobsmacked to see the boss getting in at 9.30 and the workers getting at 8.00 - having breakfast at desk, on the chatroom ( YES bhcc HAS AN INTERNAL CHATROOM, used to be called the wave ) and then starting the days work at 9.30 in front of the boss - of course leaving at 4 as they had clocked in from 8.00

if you think i qualified with CIPFA then think again - its a joke qualification xxx

I look forward to seeing MPs pitching in after their recent behaviour.

BrightonBoy wrote:
if you think i qualified with CIPFA then think again - its a joke qualification xxx

do they teach them how to put a spin on public accounts mate?

I don't understand why Cllr Morgan is objecting. There is only a certain amount of money available and some work will be of low priority and may not be done or take a longer time before it is done. Using this scheme means that low priorty work gets done. I also think by supporting this scheme the council is helping people to get back into paid employment and perhaps leaving crime behind. This is very important and the council should be congratualted for their involvment in this.

This is exactly what people under Community Service Orders should be doing.

Quite right bibble.Make them work to atone for their crimes.

The level of council tax I pay for little return is criminal so it's only fitting that criminals carry out the work.
Get them to build a new sports centre.

quite right to get these jobs done on community service. that is what it is all about, getting things done, and if the labour is available and free, why not use it. then you can use your paid labour for jobs that are out of the scope of community service. i would suggest litter clearing/street sweeping as a start.

With regard to the pink overalls - I commute by walking along the seafront daily and saw those doing community service - they were wearing fluorescent orange over-jackets with Community Payback in bold capitals on the back. If you're walking past it's pretty obvious who ther are.

I should mention that I did see some "convicts" painting the railings on Madeira Drive a few weeks back. They were wearing fluorescent waistcoats carrying the word "payback".

I thought that was a good thing. A useful service to the public. But Councillor Morgan obviously disagrees. Now why is that? Why would a councillor deliberately want to inflate the costs of running the council, costs which will have to be passed on to the tax payer? Why would he not want to make use of these low-level offenders?

Why is having less council jobs a bad thing? Isn't it more efficient (meaning a lot cheaper) to use people on Community Service Orders? Why is it a bad thing to cut jobs if it is possible to do so, and thus save money for the tax payer? Why would he deliberately run things inefficiently?

Councillor Morgan's job in "real life" is assistant to Des Turner, MP. In other words he is a politician hanging in the wings, biding his time and no doubt waiting to go into national politics. No doubt if he became an MP, Warren Morgan would not see anything wrong with the ludicrous size of the public sector.

this is great, it means workers or council tax can be used on more things or cut.not only should the crims being working for the council but also the long term unemployed for their benefits. cllr morgan and mitchell you are out of touch as are your policies and that is why you are now in opposition and staying there.

Andy R wrote:
I have to know. How much would a pension have to be to meet your definition "gold plated", and how many council staff do you think are getting it. A clue to get you started - the average local government pension is £3800 pa. Everyone thinks it's a good idea in principle to get convicts working. But they tend to think it is less of a good idea when they get a letter attached to a P45 saying "we've now got prisoners to do your job so we're letting you go. Hope that's OK" I think that's the point that's being made.

The avg private sector pension is less than 2k pa.

There are 1000s of people on the minimum wage who cannot afford top save for their retirement. But a large chunk of their council tax is used to pay for yours...

20-25% of BHCC council tax receipts go on staff pensions

aaaaaaah wrote:

Andy R wrote: I have to know. How much would a pension have to be to meet your definition "gold plated", and how many council staff do you think are getting it. A clue to get you started - the average local government pension is £3800 pa. Everyone thinks it's a good idea in principle to get convicts working. But they tend to think it is less of a good idea when they get a letter attached to a P45 saying "we've now got prisoners to do your job so we're letting you go. Hope that's OK" I think that's the point that's being made.

The avg private sector pension is less than 2k pa. There are 1000s of people on the minimum wage who cannot afford top save for their retirement. But a large chunk of their council tax is used to pay for yours... 20-25% of BHCC council tax receipts go on staff pensions

Council workers are council tax and income tax payers as well, and they contribute 6% of their salary to their pensions all of their working lives. Without occupational pensions, retired people will just be pushed onto means-tested benefits which will end up costing the taxpayer much more.

Seems you'll only be happy once everyone has completed your headlong race to the bottom.

Bug-Eye wants to see the creation of a huge conscript army of workers who can be paid nothing at all - or the princely sum of £64.30pw. Presumably he'll be happy to join this army when his boss decides that he'd rather use them than him?

Reading these discussions always provides great insights into how British workers ended up being the most downtrodden in the western world.

Andy...I have got through all my working life with no paid holidays, no sick pay schemes and definately no final salary pension....due to weather conditions and market conditions i have been skint on many occasion but, i have brought up my family ok, i'm still alive at 61 and intend to continue working. I believe all this has made me stronger..can you understand now when i say council employees are feather bedded?

Andy R wrote:

aaaaaaah wrote:

Andy R wrote: I have to know. How much would a pension have to be to meet your definition "gold plated", and how many council staff do you think are getting it. A clue to get you started - the average local government pension is £3800 pa. Everyone thinks it's a good idea in principle to get convicts working. But they tend to think it is less of a good idea when they get a letter attached to a P45 saying "we've now got prisoners to do your job so we're letting you go. Hope that's OK" I think that's the point that's being made.

The avg private sector pension is less than 2k pa. There are 1000s of people on the minimum wage who cannot afford top save for their retirement. But a large chunk of their council tax is used to pay for yours... 20-25% of BHCC council tax receipts go on staff pensions

Council workers are council tax and income tax payers as well, and they contribute 6% of their salary to their pensions all of their working lives. Without occupational pensions, retired people will just be pushed onto means-tested benefits which will end up costing the taxpayer much more. Seems you'll only be happy once everyone has completed your headlong race to the bottom. Bug-Eye wants to see the creation of a huge conscript army of workers who can be paid nothing at all - or the princely sum of £64.30pw. Presumably he'll be happy to join this army when his boss decides that he'd rather use them than him? Reading these discussions always provides great insights into how British workers ended up being the most downtrodden in the western world.

Bob, you fail to understand one key point. Yes, council workers pay tax. But that is just another tax on top of the tax already imposed on the private sector.

The government (and councils) get most of their revenue from taxation. The remainder comes from things like parking fines, selling licences, and so on.

If costs of government/councils were less it would be possible to pay staff more.

rayellerton wrote:
Andy...I have got through all my working life with no paid holidays, no sick pay schemes and definately no final salary pension....due to weather conditions and market conditions i have been skint on many occasion but, i have brought up my family ok, i'm still alive at 61 and intend to continue working. I believe all this has made me stronger..can you understand now when i say council employees are feather bedded?

Oh please! Not the "we was poor but we was 'appy" routine.

Check my previous comment about the most downtrodden workers in the western world.

Security word fore-lock-tug

Andy...you have your view and its unlikely we will ever agree....

This 'nannying' of people, who earn a salary, and have all the perks and benefits as well doesn't do them any favours. It makes it twice as hard for them when bad times befall them as they are not exactly prepared to endure periods of hardship.
dont be so patronising because i and many others dont share your views...

oh, and you didnt answer my question on who you work for..

It's a question of whether you think being kicked around by the bosses is somehow "healthy" and "character-building" as you do; or whether you think it is better to fight back rather than "endure" periods of hardship.

I'd prefer to take my example from the Vestas workers on the Isle of Wight rather than yourself Ray, if it's all the same to you.

Community service should be just that, criminals giving something back. If a criminal can paint railings for free then why not, the money saved can be used for other public services which we are constantly hearing are being cut back. If it means sacking someone cos a criminal will work for free then this clearly isnt right, but for general unassigned jobs its fine by me. Im sure West St could do with unlimited street cleaners on a sunday morning!!!