| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 351 | Sally Humphreys | |
| 352 | Stephen Thompson | I am going to loose £3000 per annum under the new pay scales to be implemented. When i was first appointed to the post, i agreed to the employment oppitunity at the wage agreed. I certainly would not have wasted the last 5 years of my life working for an council who will take £3000 a year from me. What happened to the contract i signed when i became an employee? My understanding was that it guaranteed my wages. Has this become invalid because its inconvenient for the powers that be?
The other thing that really pissed me off was that 2 weeks after i was told i was being robbed of £3000 a year, those loverly councillors with the huge expense accounts were voting themselves a 33% pay rise. The poor leader of the council was only on £35,000 a year voted to give himself £55,000! It seems to me that our pay cut is to pay for the poorer works but the councillors as well!
This whole situation is just SHIT! |
| 353 | Kashmira Fisher | |
| 354 | Paul Fisher | |
| 355 | Jean Geary | |
| 356 | Anonymous | |
| 357 | Sarah Ellix | I wholly agree with the statements made re this petition. Please reconsider the local implementation of the scheme and the lack of transparency or perceived fairness of the outcomes for individual staff. I am dumbfounded that no Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken prior to implementationof the policy. This still requires a formal response. |
| 358 | Sarah Ellix | I wholly agree with the statements made re this petition. Please reconsider the local implementation of the scheme and the lack of transparency or perceived fairness of the outcomes for individual staff. I am dumbfounded that no Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken prior to implementationof the policy. This still requires a formal response. |
| 359 | stuart collings | |
| 360 | Helen Pearson | |
| 361 | Jane Taylor | |
| 362 | sandra hamilton | no body should be expected to take a cut in pay for doing the same job |
| 363 | Barbara Hearst | |
| 364 | Liz Wood | |
| 365 | helen parker | |
| 366 | Grace Smith | |
| 367 | Anonymous | |
| 368 | Anonymous | |
| 369 | Anonymous | |
| 370 | Anonymous | |
| 371 | Mark Prosser | My situation is very similar to those of previous posts and my pay cuts mean I cannot now afford my mortgage and I will be FORCED to look for another job if they go ahead. I totally agree to the principle of equal pay but I do not agree to a system that punishes loyalty and hard work expecially middle management tiers of the council yet is favourable to upper management. The system is demoralising and makes me angry and just points to how poorly the Council thinks of its workforce. |
| 372 | Anonymous | |
| 373 | Stewart Doughty | I am supporting this campaign to show support for members of my team who will be affected by the proposed new banding. It seems morally unjust that employees on agreed T&C and salaries will be forced to take pay cuts of around 20% as in my team members case. |
| 374 | Anonymous | Equality Impact Assessment should have been carried out in accordance to the equalities legislation. By restricting the grounds of appeal, this is a breach of natural justice. By not paying a 'decent wage', this is supporting 'low wages' and encouraging others in the city to pay the same. By taking away my ability to meet my basic needs, this will force me into poverty. By reducing the wages of 857 employees, this will have a multiplier effect on the number of jobs lost in the city. By not budgeting, i am having to pay the price and not you. |
| 375 | Elizabeth Underwood | |
| 376 | Elizabeth Green | |
| 377 | Anonymous | |
| 378 | Anonymous | For what it is worth - this whole exercise in equality shows little or no requirement for sustantive proof of evidence to benchmark the effective contributions made by individuals.
What commonality of evidence was required to make the comparisons? What properly defined and culturally acceptable comparative levels were set and monitored across the various areas of the whole exercise to prove that it was applied fairly by all to all?
What does 'measures the degree' actually mean to a person under pressure to assess? All jobs vary in their degree of complexity of intellectual and physical application. These vary wildly day to day and would therefore confuse even the most determined of trackers. How was this variance of application measured and taken into account. Or were simple generalisations made?
The factors outlined give a reassuring and wide range of promises but not their breakdown into comparative positive actions and their ultimate 'checkable' fairness of application.
Have we been given any evidence by the assessors of any 'outcome reflection' as to the effectiveness and fair application methodology?
What training were the prosecutors of this exercise given to show fairness of delivery.
Mission creep in jobs is endemic, how much of this was given to the person who nominally was originally responsible for it?
Were the corporate commissioners of this exercise aware of the possible outcomes when they accepted it's use? It does seem that if they had bothered to read their media history of this exercise then they would have been clear on its probable outcomes and have focussed on the inadequacies of their own system of internal auditing of equality issues. Lets face it it was their systems architecture at fault. If they could not uncover inequality in job reviews etc.
Were any objections raised when it became clear that during this exercise inequality could become a creative process based on individual subjectivity and perhaps, in cases, bias and wishful thinking? |
| 379 | Ruth Coventry | |
| 380 | Anonymous | There are at least three fundamental issues with the way in which the Council has gone about the introduction of the proposed job evaluation scheme which reflect badly on senior management and the leadership of the organisation.
1. The consultation has been farcical with essential information (the appeals process, the scoring system etc) not available from the date on which the consultation started.
2. The consultation period has been fused with the implementation period (for example, changes in salaries are to be backdated to before the start of the consultation) in order to increase the speed with which the changes can be brought in. This indicates that the consultation is in itself a sham. How can due regard to the consultation responses be ensured given the truncated timescales for implementation?
3. The actual results from the exercise demonstrate obvious errors and lack of consistency across the authority. This is a fundamental failing of the job evaluation project and given the apparent scale of the errors that have been made should not be left to the appeals process to resolve it. Ask yourself whether it is proper treatment of staff to expect them to challenge each error through an appeals process or whether an alternative approach of undertaking a comprehensive review of the scoring that has been done within the project would be fairer, better for morale and indicate a willingness of senior management to accept realities?
The process of job evaluation has been an abject failure but it would indicate that there are graver problems within the senior management of this Council at the highest level. |
| 381 | D Gibbons | |
| 382 | Anne Newbery | |
| 383 | Anonymous | I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of this petition. I am one of many disgruntaled members of staff affected within the Architecture Stream. There would appear to be numerous anomolies with the point scoring certainly for our section and I therefore assume this is likely to be the same for other sections across the Council. |
| 384 | Anonymous | Where was the training and/or guidance for the writing the JAQ's, surely this was one of the most important parts of the Job Evaluation process. It appears to me that the majority of people who have lost out as a result of the JAQ's completed. Surely there must have been an agreed procedure to advise us the workers on how to complete the JAQ's. Although the evaluation process may be necessary it has be initiated incorrectly. |
| 385 | Ranjan Pattni | |
| 386 | Anonymous | This whole process and it's proposed outcome is an utter disgrace. The unions should engage legal help and challenge the legality of the way this process was conducted. Unison in it's newsletter highlights how procedures were not correctly followed and interfered with. The lack of information available to staff considering appeals etc has been nothind short of shameful. |
| 387 | Anonymous | I am not happy with the proposed pay cut imposed on myslef as Leicester City Council employee and feel by imposing such the cut is in berach of my contract. |
| 388 | Anonymous | The new structure will create a work environment where many employees will be very de-motivated as their current salary is reduced without their workload reducing. In many cases, work will actually increase in complexity and volume without the same amount of pay. |
| 389 | Sally Atkinson | I have the following issues with the JE process:
1. The strategy for communicating with staff is flawed and has been under-resourced and badly managed - staff should not receive information on Saturday's with no staffed helpine or access to information for 2 days.
2. No consideration has been given to vulnerable staff, i.e. those who are on sick leave, covered by the DDA, on maternity leave, are named carers or are single parents.
3. The lack of an EIA is risible - it is used in all areas of service delivery across LCC and to not use it for assessing a key area that will damage staff is inexcusable.
4. It is simply unsustainable for staff experiencing such pay cuts to continue working at LCC - and who could blame them.
5. LCC, through its application of the JE process has shown nothing short of contempt for its staff. |
| 390 | alex smith | a lot of good staff are likely to leave thanks to this system. It should have been thought through more thoroughly with more consultation with staff, rather than a nameless, faceless person scoring our jobs to a set criteria. |
| 391 | Anonymous | When I joined the Council only three years ago there was no mention made of the fact that my contract would or could be downgraded. I am set to lose £8k off my annual salary which will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pay the mortgage. I will have to look for another job elsewhere if the Job Evaluation is implemented. Huge numbers of people are set to leave the council as a result of JE and managers will have little or no hope of recruiting suitably skilled replacements on the salaries they are proposing. What impact will this have on the stress levels of those who remain employed in the Council? How much are recruitment and training costs set to rise? If people can't be replaced on the proposed new salaries, what will be the impact on local service delivery? |
| 392 | Jenny Shipley | |
| 393 | Anonymous | I feel that this is far from equalising pay and have yet to hear from anyone who has benefited by the same maging that many staff are to loose. |
| 394 | Caroline Ryan | Ditto with the wide range of comments above. I would also like to add that if you want to see how it's done properly look to the National Probation Service who implemented the same process nationally with little or no impact. How I hear you ask, well they made everything public before a pen was put to a JAQ - so everyone knew the factors, the scores, the bands - in other words everyone was fully informed - what a shame the Authority didn't look around and learn lessons from elsewhere in the Country!! |
| 395 | Jasvinder Obhi | the whole process has been unfair, through to lack of consultation and information. |
| 396 | Sukhbinder Basra | I am a web developer and web editor. I designed and develop interactive DVDs and CD s for people with learning disabiltities. And I am being paid same as a senior clerk. Where is the justice? The question I ask myself is : "Does the project need a seniro clerk or an IT expert?" |
| 397 | Jasmine Matharu | |
| 398 | Karen Chilton | I have worked for the Council for 32 years and have never felt so demoralised and undervalued. The process (points system) seems to bear no resemblance to my work. |
| 399 | Jill Flanagan | When you agree to accept a job, you do so expecting that the wages, terms and conditions offered to you will only improve, not be removed! People base their lives around the consistency and security of their wages. To take away the money they have worked hard for - and fully deserve - is immoral, disrespectful and unfair. |
| 400 | Anonymous | |