Author Topic: CCBC costs and cutting  (Read 150696 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #255 on: January 30, 2019, 10:08:52 am »
Don’t we already pay for collection, via the Council Tax?

Offline Meleri

  • Genealogy & Research team
  • *
  • Posts: 535
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #256 on: January 30, 2019, 01:23:39 pm »
CCBC are looking all the time to cut costs as there has been yet another cut in funding they receive from Cardiff. When Denbighshire CC started charging for garden waste it was only a matter of time before Conwy followed. My daughter has been paying £50 annually in Berkshire for green waste collection, which is one green bin per fortnight. I can see a lot more fly tipping in Conwy County & people lighting bonfires polluting the air.


Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8949
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #257 on: January 30, 2019, 01:46:49 pm »
Of course the Cardiff funding is determined by Westminster. 
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline DVT

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 1045
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #258 on: January 30, 2019, 09:59:26 pm »
Someone told me that the split in fines is 30% CCBC and 70% Kingdom.
So if £200K is 30% then the total fines would be £666,666.
Surely, if the total fines remained at that level then CCBS should be able to employ a few people to do the work and still make £200k "profit".

Or, is that too simple?

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8949
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #259 on: January 31, 2019, 08:42:08 am »
I suspect the Kingston Security saga is analogous to Brexit;  everyone moans about the bad points, but when it's gone everyone notices what it was really doing.

CCBC employed Kingston specifically because they didn't want to get the flak from fining dog owners. Councils are far more vulnerable to allegations of poor behaviour than are private companies, as we all know. With Kingston CCBC were able to shrug off complaints by claiming it wasn't anything to do with them. Now, if they have to do things themselves, they'll be in the firing line. That can affect their re-election prospects and consequently their pockets.

But here's a thought; it doesn't need a security firm to do the job. It can be done by local people with little cameras.  It'd be mighty cost-effective (cheap) to issue tiny cameras (like GoPros) to Neighbourhood Watch groups who could then patrol the streets and film offenders. After all, allowing dogs to foul without clearing up is not simply an offence; it's dangerous and extremely anti-social.

The Watch groups could then share in the income generated by the fines, the streets would be cleaner and no brutish Kingston Security types would be around. 
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline SteveH

  • Management Board Member & Newsgroup Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 12989
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #260 on: February 02, 2019, 01:40:27 pm »
THE use of notices aimed at combating sickness absence levels among Conwy staff has shot up by 48 per cent on last year.

But the county council says the increase in Sickness Improvement Notices is a good thing as it has seen an improvement in attendance.

The council had had one of the worst rates for staff absence in Wales but that has improved over the last year, a report to members of the council’s finance committee said.

Cont..     https://www.northwalespioneer.co.uk/news/17404642.use-of-notices-to-combat-staff-sickness-absences-increase-by-48-per-cent/?ref=mr&lp=3

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #261 on: February 02, 2019, 05:08:23 pm »
If the average number of sick days per CCBC employee is 11.67 annually.... and the average in the private sector is 4.3 days, why is the CCBC target being set at 10 days per year?

If that reduction would save £500k, then why not try for what should be logically achievable, and save £2.5 ?
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13885
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #262 on: February 02, 2019, 05:20:12 pm »
The problem with local government and national government is that there is a system in place that allows the employees to self certify their sickness absence for up to 7 days and as a consequence this system is open to abuse and a small minority of individuals will take advantage of it
In the private sector, I presume that most employees would be subject to the SSP  system and for the self employed it would mean no work no pay.
It doesn't need the introduction of a sickness guru to sort the problem out, that should have been done by good managers, but therein lies the problem with the CCBC

Offline cygnusx-1

  • Member
  • Posts: 143
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #263 on: February 02, 2019, 06:55:48 pm »
The self certification for 7 days has been in place for SSP and the self employed like those in the public sector since the 1980s to stop a large queue at the Doctors for a runny nose! The self employed have always been able to claim SIckness Benefit by paying the self employed stamp........usually at the 2 week  shut down at Christmas in the construction industry!!!

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13885
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #264 on: February 02, 2019, 09:06:38 pm »
That's news to me because SSP is not paid for the first 3 days you're off, unless you've been paid SSP within the last 8 weeks and are eligible for it again.
I think that you'll find that the employees in the building industry take paid annual leave over the Christmas period and I doubt that the self employed are entitled to sickness benefits unless of course they are genuinely sick over that period

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8949
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #265 on: February 03, 2019, 08:52:20 am »
It's not clear: "You can get £92.05 per week Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) if you’re too ill to work. It’s paid by your employer for up to 28 weeks.

You need to qualify for SSP and have been off work sick for 4 or more days in a row (including non-working days)."

The difference is that CCBC will be signed up to the LGA sick pay scheme as follows:

[smg id=4103]

in addition to which some will have their own professional association negotiated sick pay scheme which will pay full pay for six months, then half pay for the following six months.

There are, however, swings and roundabouts in all this. Private industry practice varies significantly over time.  Before 2000, for instance, private industry was offering exceptionally good pension schemes, often non-contributory and paying 2/3rds of annual salary.   Many of those schemes have now gone, and those left have become contributory.  Since 2008 pay and pensions in private industry have become far inferior on average to those offered by local and national government.

I do remember around the year 2000 civil servants enjoyed the best terms of service, with a non-contributory pension scheme and very generous sick pay.  How or if that's changed I don't know.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13885
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #266 on: February 03, 2019, 12:17:04 pm »
Most local government and national government employees are hard working and conscientious, so the statistics for sickness in the CCBC must be attributed to a minority of individuals who are taking advantage of the system that they have in place.
The system was introduced to the workplace to protect the genuine sick people and it was never meant to be abused by the shirkers and skivers.     If the employees can work out the genuine cases from the skivers so why can't the bosses do that and do something to get rid of the skivers?

With regards to the self employed who pay a Class 2 NIC  and even a class 4 NIC  they cannot get Statutory Sick Pay as they are working for themselves and therefore do not have an employer.  If they are temporarily unable to work due to illness, they should check if they qualify for Employment and Support Allowance.   So I'll repeat myself and say that for the self employed over the Christmas period no work means no pay unless they are genuinely sick.

I know in  2006 civil servants enjoyed the best terms of service over their last 3 years of service and did have a very generous sick pay 
arrangement,  but as for a "non-contributory pension scheme" then that is debatable as many people believed that their pay was deliberately suppressed to take into account that pension.    I believe that this system has since changed but I do not know the present conditions.      .


   

Offline SDQ

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 990
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #267 on: February 03, 2019, 05:38:53 pm »
If the average number of sick days per CCBC employee is 11.67 annually.... and the average in the private sector is 4.3 days, why is the CCBC target being set at 10 days per year?

If that reduction would save £500k, then why not try for what should be logically achievable, and save £2.5 ?


The reason the private sector is lower is because they return to work at the earliest convenience, regardless if they have fully recovered, because they can’t afford to lose too much money. With a proper sick pay scheme the employee can afford to take the extra day(s) and return to work fully recovered. I see people quick to assume there are many abusers of this system, I agree there are always a couple, but nobody has mentioned the figures being affected by long term sick employees who are unfortunate to have suffered heart attecks or contracted cancer etc..
The larger the employer the more chance they could have a number of long term sick employees which could greatly distort the figures quoted.
Valar Morghulis

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13885
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #268 on: February 03, 2019, 10:58:58 pm »
To be fair I don't think anyone has suggested that there are many abusers of the system.   Yes, in any organisation you will get a very small minority of skivers who will abuse the sick leave system but most employees are conscientious and don't take advantage of the system
The system is in place to protect those people who unfortunately are on long term sick through no fault of their own and the managers should take this into consideration.    It's just a shame that a very small minority of skivers spoil it for others

However these organisations are facing severe government cutbacks and any absence will increase the pressure put on those employees who are still working and increases the stress levels on those people.    Sickness isn't just confined to a physical illness,  continued increases in stress levels can have a detrimental affect on the health of those people who have to cover for their colleagues

Offline SteveH

  • Management Board Member & Newsgroup Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 12989
Re: CCBC costs and cutting
« Reply #269 on: February 04, 2019, 05:17:08 pm »
Conwy councillors say no to reducing 11.6 per cent tax increase.

Cash-strapped Conwy council is facing a budget shortfall of £15.2 million and has had to cut services, including becoming the first council in Wales to bring in monthly bin collections.

Conwy took another hit with the announcement last month that it could expect a cut of 0.3 per cent in the money it gets from the Welsh Government.
In order to balance the books, the council had planned to put up council tax by 11.6 per cent.

But councillor Sam Rowlands, cabinet member for finance, had come up with a plan to use money for new schools to cut that rise by two per cent, which would have left residents facing a hike of 9.6 per cent.

Today, members of the council’s finance committee voted against that plan.

Cont.....  https://www.northwalespioneer.co.uk/news/17408088.conwy-councillors-say-no-to-reducing-116-per-cent-tax-increase/