Monday, 27 June 2011

John Barradell - do Brighton Greens think him greedy or simply not worth his pay?

The Brighton Green party want to limit top pay to no more than eight times the lowest pay.

(Priority pledge 13 page 3 brighton and hove green manifesto - see earlier blog)

I can only think of two reasons for such a philosophy:-

1) Greens believe nones work can possibly be worth more than 8 times that of another.

or

2) Greens think someone wanting more that 8 times the lowest paid maybe worth the money, but by wanting it is too selfish and greedy to be employed.

As there are council employees on more than 8 times the pay the lowest paid (John Barradell the chief executive for instance) how can the Greens not cut his pay immediately? as they must think either:-

1) He is simply not worth what he is being paid.
or

2) He is selfish and greedy and unfit to be employed.

Which is it I wonder? or have I missed an option?

** edit **
For more background, I have made a Freedom of Information request to Brighton and Hove City Council asking for information on the highest and lowest salaraies paid (link: What Do They Know?)

5 comments:

  1. 3) He's not an employee but something else that allows them to ignore inconvenient figures... an anomaly!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Or (3) Greens think that a huge gap between the highest and lowest salaries is a sign that something has gone wrong in the free market for jobs.

    I suspect you might agree with this, but would propose a different solution to this brute-force authoritarian fix?

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...maybe that's the same as (1), just phrased differently

    ReplyDelete
  4. Phil - If they greens are pushed to honour their commitment, I suspect that is what will happen - the 'rich' will be employed via service companies or consultancies or similar to sidestep the pledge.

    Anthony - What I think is that there is a Green manifesto pledge for an 8 times multiple and the Greens are now running the council.

    Labour agreed with the Greens in wanting rid of the super directors altogether - between them that's 2/3rds of the common vote!. In light of that a pay cut should be small beer.

    If the Greens think it is 'ok' for people to be on higher multiples in certain circumstances they could have said so, but they didn't...

    If the Greens (and Labour?) think it is 'ok' to have the super-directors in certain circumstances they could have said so but they didn't...

    Just as the LibDems didn't say tuition fees were 'ok' in certain circumstances before the last general election...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anthony, on your second comment (posted while I wrote my previous one I think) - I don't know what the Chief Exec does, nor the super-directors, so I have no idea what I would think them worth! But the people have spoken...

    ReplyDelete