Don’t give us a pay rise!

A LAST-MINUTE challenge has been made to stop States Members getting a 1.8% pay rise.

St Saviour Constable Sadie Rennard
St Saviour Constable Sadie Rennard

A LAST-MINUTE challenge has been made to stop States Members getting a 1.8% pay rise.

Just minutes before the deadline for objections to a proposed £818 pay rise, St Saviour Constable Sadie Rennard formally lodged a proposition to freeze salaries.

She says that although she might not find herself on many States Members’ Christmas card lists, she could not accept that the rise was justified.

The rise was proposed by the independent pay review body on 30 October and States rules say it would have automatically come into force on 1 January if Mrs Rennard’s proposition had not been submitted before 5.15 pm yesterday.

Comments for: "Don’t give us a pay rise!"

the thin wallet

well done sadie.

you for one have a small finger on the pulse of the general public who have cough up to cover it ( the pay rise )

forget about spending on the review , who are they anyway. go on name the panel. for this goverment to dip into the taxpayers purse. when we are all feeling the pinch. both , poor and rich.

for this goverment to take a pay rise from the people in the street in these tough times .

when we are facing tough times, leaves a bad taste in the mouth to say the least.

john

How about the JEP publishing some realistic 'average earnings'instead of the distorted ones that tries to make it look like Jersey is a well paid place.Average wage in retail £470 per week,bar work £370 per week.Most jobs i've seen advertised for these positions pay the minimum wage of £6.50 per hour.These poeple,s pay is less than £300 per week before tax and social.These figures are obviously skewed by overpaid managers which distort the real average.Howabout some statistics that show how many people earn less than £20,000.

mark g

hypocrites...all of them. i am talking about the states members. they have all been in the media stating they would not accept the rise yet none of them came forward to object.

Jerry Gosselin

My thoughts entirely, Mark G. They cleverly perverted it into a PR exercise for themselves to show us what lovely people they are. I didn't fall for it. The extremely late timing of the Constable's proposition raises some interesting questions though. In my opinion, there must have been very intense efforts behind the scenes to dissuade any States Member from lodging that proposition. By doing nothing, everyone would have pocketed the rise if they wanted it, albeit some claim they would then give it away, if you choose to believe that. I don't think Mrs Rennard is going to be flavour of the month with her colleagues from now on. It seems they will now have to face a vote on the matter in the full glare of publicity and as nearly all of them apart from Southern seem to have made public statements condemning the proposed increase, they will now have little option but to vote against the rise or face being labelled hypocrites. I think the Assembly will be even emptier than usual when that vote is taken, with many abstentions amongst those who do actually turn up.

Sam

If any States Member isn't worth a pay rise, it is ironically this Constable.

This is the only proposition she has ever put forward in the States, and she has only actually contributed to States debates a measly three times (one of which she was told off by the Bailiff for using unparliamentary language), and she is not a member of any States committee.

She is my Constable, so I emailed her a few weeks ago to suggest to her that she accepts the pay rise but donates the £818 to a local charity like Hospice. Her response was that her workers weren't getting a pay rise, so she shouldn't accept one either. She voted against a public sector wage increase.

Also, I'll happily bet some money here that in two weeks she votes in favour of purchasing Plémont. Despite the fact that that £8m could go on her workers wages if she was so determined to stand up for them.

Mark G

"..so I emailed her a few weeks ago to suggest to her that she accepts the pay rise but donates the £818 to a local charity like Hospice."

Sorry Sam but the idea of not taking a pay rise is to cut the cost of the States to the Tax Payer. By accepting the pay increase all they are doing is adding more financial burden onto the budget, the States are telling the public sector and the public to restrain from pay increases to help costs? By taking this rise and giving it to charity will only add additional more costs to the States and the tax payer. They should NOT be accepting any rise and its noticable that none of them objected!

Alan

Yet again you are turning this into an anti-Constable tirade. Constables cannot win can they; This Constables turns the pay rise down and you lambast her for it. She is on a committee (immigration i believe) and the Parish of St. Saviour is doing a lot better under her guidance (she is my Constable also). To be honest has every new member put forward a proposition in the year they have been in the States? This one is the more ballsy so well done to her.

Do you give money to charity, whats your email? I will email you every year, month or week then post on message boards of how much of a hypocrite you are! Why should she accept the payrise and give it to Charity? She's turning it down because her PARISH workers arent getting a payrise. Its called setting a principal Sam, something you know nothing about.

Sam

There was nothing in my argument that was ant-Constable, it was anti-Sadie Rennard. Some Constables are very good and active States Members. Don't divert the argument.

The States website says the only committee she is on is the committee of Constables (which is automatic from being a Constable). If that is out of date, I retract the previous comment.

Do I give money to charity? As it happens my friend, despite the fact my disposable income is rock bottom, yes I do. But more than that, every year I volunteer and sometimes help organise for more events than I can recall to raise money for charity. Normally gigs, specifically for young acts. So you don't have to worry about the abusive and inaccurate barrage of emails.

As for the principle, yes that is what she told me too. How does stopping very hard working States Members, like Philip Ozouf, Simon Crowcroft, the Chief Minister etc from getting a pay rise materially help her Parish workers? It doesn't. They are separate issues. If she is annoyed at her Parish workers not getting pay rises, perhaps she as Constable might have something to do about that? But then she has voted against pay rises for all public sector workers, so I doubt she actually cares. If she did, she wouldn't be wasting her time on this proposition which doesn't help them.

If she wants her workers to get better wages, there is nothing stopping her from accepting the £818 and giving it to them instead.

Dennis B

By taking this rise and either giving it to charity or the workers as you keep suggesting will only add additional costs to the States and the tax payer. Samuel leave your personal vendettas at the door. Alternatively do something about it when you run for a position in the States in 2 years time... *good luck, you'll need it*

Jerry Gosselin

By advising a States Member to accept this pay rise, Sam, you are ensuring that the taxpayer DOES have to foot the bill for the rise. The whole argument is that they shouldn't have been offered it in the first place, given the present climate. Whether it then ends up in the coffers of charity is not a valid consideration in the decision.

You could then use the same bargaining tool in other public sector pay negotiations. For example, we might get every civil servant in Jersey signing a public declaration agreeing to hand over some of their pay rise to charity in return for the States breaking policy and agreeing to give them a higher rise than originally intended. Does that mean the States, as employer, should then give in and agree to it? No. Because it is part of the wider policy of controlling public sector spending and inflation, as well as being fair to all those not employed by the States who won't be getting such easy pay rises. Of course, there is no way we would ever know for certain if a politician HAD actually kept his/her promise to pay the money to charity, because that is confidential to them (unless they choose to publicise it). Personally I try not to accept vague promises made by politicians. They have a habit of breaking them.

ex-resident

Well done Connetable, however a decrease in States Members pay would be more impressive. Doubt if the majority of them would be capable of earning what they are paid in the big bad world.

s

I wholeheartedly agree, imagine the likes of Ozouf trying to swan around the way he does in a private sector job! I don,t think so.

jerseythepartiesover

I have never seen her go out on a limb before, nice bit of politics or so she thinks but it does not fool me one bit.

James Wiley

We aren't giving you a pay rise, many of us don't even think you should be paid. If you are not privately wealthy then you should live on income support like the rest of the people who don't work.

You are taking our money and keeping it for yourselves.

IHAVEABIGFATPENSION

What a hypocrite. She voted to block a pay rise for her parish employees then states in the JEP if the States wont give her workers a rise she wont take one.

The Sates wont give there workers a rise because you blocked it you silly woman.

GETYOURCOFFEATSTARBUCKS

Let David Warr and his greedy profiteering chamber members pay for the inquiry then.

"The project would have seen hundreds of homes built, as well as restaurants and shops created in a part of town that has been identified as in need of rejuvenation."

Any fool knows that your not going to build more houses now when the market has all but collapsed and our tax evasion industry is under threat.

No one's buying very few can move house due to the threat of being saddled with negative equity when then banks drift away to Siwtzerland one buy one it's LVCR all over again but with a much greater impact

St Saviour resident

WOW in St Saviour we have a Constable in the States,thought she had done like our last one did Constable Ozouf & fell asleep on 1st day & stayed that way.

Yes Sam she will vote FOR Plemont as she signed Senator Bailanche's nomination paper( so much for no party politics!)so don't hold your breath there.

This is usual spin to remind us that there are Constables in the House.

Constables OUT!

SMALL BUSINESS

Doubt if the majority of them would be capable of earning what they are paid in the big bad world.

They should be paid on what they earnt before becoming a States member,their previous 3 years tax declared income to become the sum paid averaged out.Then if a Minister etc paid more.If no good back to basic salary/expenses.

Andy

No way should they take a pay rise,even last year this should have been refused by members but the majority took it ...would be interesting to see which members were drawing an oap pension too and what other income they receive...seems the more they have the more they want....just pure greed!!

john

good point Small business

I bet there are very few States members that could command a £45,000 salary in the private sector.

moatcoco

1.8 pay rise = 888 pensioners 1.8 rise was what about 3.00& oh yeah

Sanity

Whilst I may despair at many of the self publicity stunts of politicians there are few that have made me as angry as this one. Just what has this particular member done to justify the current £45k of our money she takes every year, not forgetting that this salary is paid as a States member, not as a Constable.

Of course she should forego any pay-rise but to compare herself to those members who actually work long and hard on States business in return for this salary is an insult both to her fellow politicians and the public intellect. Perhaps those that are applauding this show of “generosity” would do well to remember that £45,000 is a lot of money if not earned and remember that she is taking the same salary as our Chief minister. There is no obligation for any States member to take the full, or indeed any, of this salary, this being left to the honesty and integrity of each individual. Perhaps instead of worrying about a small pay-rise Mrs Rennard should perhaps give some though to returning the difference in what she has taken and a Minister has earned?

Certainly if she represented the “norm” for the Constables then I would be apologising to both young Sam and Mr Wimberley. It has also made me reconsider my view that perhaps there should be some mechanism whereby politicians are paid for the work they do and responsibility they shoulder.

C Le Verdic

Perhaps this is a good time of the year to remember that Sadie's forte has always been pantomime.

She might be behind you, workers, on the other hand she might not!

Teresa

Constable Sadie Rennard, in my mind, do not deserve a pay rise. What has she achieved so far as a Constable? Please let me know.