Public: HR | Public

Public sector jobs hold up

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:31:38 GMT

It's not all gloom and doom for public managers, as recruitment looks up in finance and accountancy

There are some signs that, despite the pressure on public sector budgets, employment in some area of the public sector may increase.

According to a recent survey by recruitment consultancy Badenoch & Clark, more than a third of public sector employers plan to recruit accountancy and finance professionals in 2010 and procurement is another sector where opportunities are set to open up.

Commenting on recent reports on job cuts in the public sector, Nicola Linkleter, executive director of public sector at Badenoch & Clark, said: "With an ongoing deficit blighting the British public sector, employers will certainly be under pressure to show value for money in the run up to the general election. However, our findings show that the outlook is not entirely bleak."

Linkleter said the results are partly due to public sector bodies opting to employ interim managers, rather than management consultants. "Some specialist public sector organisations will be exercising caution though, in particular the not-for-profit sector, three quarters (76%) of which told us they have no plans to recruit into accounting & finance roles during 2010."

Despite these caution, Linkleter said the findings "clearly demonstrate" that widespread redundancies are not a certainty in the public sector. "The coming months are likely to be challenging as all organisations endeavour to demonstrate their value. However there will continue to be opportunities for talented individuals," she said. "The best people in the market will continue to thrive and anyone who can demonstrate they are a valuable asset to the sector will continue to be in demand."

Make public bodies more diverse

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:05:17 GMT

New research shows that public bodies are overwhelmingly male and white, as the government launches a campaign to make them more diverse and meet its own targets

Harriet Harman, the mininster for women and equality, is spearheading a campaign to make public bodies more diverse, as research is published showing that such bodies are comprised mainly of white men.

A summary of the Ipsos MORI research, carried out for the Government Equalities Office and the Cabinet Office, shows that nine out of ten people in the survey have never considered applying for a national public appointment.

Last June, the government set targets to increase diversity on public bodies. By 2011, women must form 50% of new public appointees - up from 33% in March 2008. The number of disabled people is to rise from 5% to 14%, while the number of people from ethnic minorities, now just 5.7%, is due to rise to 11%.

Several programmes have been launched to support the campaign, including a network for public appointments ambassadors and two mentoring programmes.

Harman said public bodies take decisions that affect everyone's lives, but are not representative of society.

Skills for growth white paper needs more work

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:09:00 GMT

While commitment to apprenticeships and the employer-led sector skills councils can only be a good thing, the removal of support for schemes such as 'non-first' qualifications are a glaring mistake

The new skills strategy white paper, Skills for Growth, is a positive move forward, but there is still significant room for improvement in the proposals, particularly in regard to the implications for the companies represented by Proskills and the wider manufacturing sector.

We welcome the strategy's commitment to giving industry, through the employer-led sector skills councils (SSC), a voice in the skills system, to help develop the British economy for the future.

The paper also increases the amount of investment in apprenticeships, which will help tackle youth unemployment and train people for real jobs.

However, the strategy also suggests that this investment will see the withdrawal of support for other, equally important vocational qualifications.

I find it hard to understand the decision to withdraw funding from qualification units, and the removal of support for additional "non-first" qualifications that can be used to "multi-skill" people in the workplace.

Our research shows that these are precisely the training options that will be of most benefit to companies and people in our industries as we move out of the recession.

The vital need to simplify

The strategy recognises the vital need to simplify the skills system and Proskills welcomes the plans to reduce the number of regional bodies with overlapping responsibilities.

I am concerned though, that the suggested changes will serve only to simplify the system for the government and stakeholders rather than for industry.

If changes are not made with employers in mind they will not benefit the economy or the people who work in this country.

To keep employers engaged with the skills system it is vital to use a sectoral approach but the white paper gives the strategic lead to the regional development agencies, rather than the sectoral bodies who know the needs of their industries.

As Stephen Falder, the chairman of Proskills and director of HMG Paints commented: "employers will welcome the commitment to continuing investment in vocational education but there is a view that many previous government promises have been hollow especially as the funding promised to the manufacturing sector through Train to Gain was not delivered".

The findings of the recent review of Train to Gain by the National Audit Office highlighted significant inefficiencies and my concern is there will continue to be considerable wastage in the system after this strategy is implemented.

Proskills and other SSCs have achieved more efficient results through sector compacts. These agreements helped to assign funding directly where it was needed and we believe that this approach is the right one for the future.

Quantity over quality

The "quantity over quality" approach to training still seems to form a central part of the process by which funding is allocated. We should be placing public money where it can generate the best results. It seems incredible that there are 14 times as many publically-funded apprenticeships awarded annually in hairdressing than manufacturing, despite the turnover per head generated in manufacturing being more than 7 times as high as in hairdressing.

Clive Bowers, chairman CPI Corrugated Sector and chief executive of Smurfit Kappa Corrugated UK, has added his backing to this argument, recently saying, "public money should be invested in skills where it can generate the best results for UK PLC. Manufacturing has to be supported as it is the fundamental source for the future prosperity for UK PLC".

If we're to increase productivity and competitiveness in the UK, it is essential that we have support to upskill and multiskill our current workforce as well as investment in young people.

The "picking the winners" approach implied by the recent New Industries, New Jobs paper doesn't cover key parts of the UK economy and significant parts of manufacturing and industry are likely to continue missing out on much-needed government funding and support.

A wider vision of the future, identifying priorities for investment based on real employer demand through sectoral bodies, would be more successful and would ensure true value for money in the skills system.

Terry Watts is chief executive of Proskills UK

Adding up the figures

Jane Dudman — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:01:37 GMT

The goverment's planning of public finances needs to be run using a more business-led approach, rather than arbitrary targets, says a Treasury sub-committee into efficiency

The familiar roster of this government's failings have been rehearsed yet again, and this time where it will hurt the government most - its much-beloved efficiency programme.

Targets have been set without prior consultation; claimed savings are in doubt; and there is no evidence that the structures are in place to ensure the government can make the further savings in public spending that it has outlined. Those were the main findings of the Commons' Treasury sub-committee report earlier this week, following its investigation into the government's efficiency programme.

Moreover, the usual nostrums are recommended, chiefly more joined-up government: the report says that if the additional £15bn of savings are to be made, on top of the £35bn already planned, "considerable co-operation"
between departments will be needed. "We have yet to see evidence that the necessary structures are in place to facilitate such co-operation," says the report, which calls on the government to outline the practical steps taken towards this end.

The report also wants a single, annual report on the whole government efficiency programme, to ensure figures are clear, rather than individual reports from different departments. Michael Fallon, the Conservative MP who chairs the Treasury sub-committee, said the Treasury would be the logical department to co-ordinate the government's overall approach to efficiency.

But measuring exactly how much money the government can save could, in itself, be costly, according to Dr Jennifer Law, principal lecturer in the social sciences department at Glamorgan University. Law told the sub-committee that it was "vital" for organisations to have accurate information - but warned that collecting this information could be costly.

The government also does things the wrong way round, regularly introducing systems to validate savings only after efficiency programmes have been launched. Not only is this illogical, but it leads to a situation where, for instance, the chief finance director at HM Revenue & Customs did not know how much the merger between the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise had saved.

Moreover, the figures in the government's operational efficiency programme were chosen, say the MPs, "without prior consultation" with departments. The report wants the planning of public finances to be run using a "more business-led approach", rather than setting an "arbitrary" target.

Poor staff morale is also highlighted in the report and underlines the difficulties that public managers face in managing through the budget restraints that are expected in public spending. HMRC has faced proportionally greater staff cuts, because it is such a large department, with a headcount reduction "directed very much from the top", said Fallon. That has resulted in plummeting morale - the ratio of staff satisfied to be working for the department has halved in just three years, from 32% to a mere 16%.

Low staff morale at HMRC has been caused, in part, by uncertainty about the future, a lack of understanding about the chosen efficiency targets, especially when service quality is perceived to have fallen, and increased pressure - having to do the same job with less resources. That's going to be a familiar story; and the sub-committee wants better communication with staff and a commitment that training, in particular, will not suffer as a result of its efficiency programme.

Different approaches, such as the lean system, have been tried, but with mixed success, said Fallon. "I can see what they are getting at, but again it is all driven from the top," he said. Another problem affecting morale is that when cuts are made, the benefits aren't recouped by each department itself.

The report may, however, prove a welcome shove forward for the government's somewhat stalled shared services programme. Fallon said there is "huge scope" for departments and agencies to share services in areas such as payroll, departmental accounting and HR. His committee was "very struck" he said by the evidence from Martin Read, former chairman of Logica, on the fact that big savings can still be made in such areas, with savings of up to 25% still possible, despite these back office functions having been highlighted in the original Gershon efficiency review.

"I feel quite strongly that if an organisation is in the bottom quartile, they shouldn't even be doing those things," he said, adding that the forthcoming budget restraints will accelerate the consolidation of such services within government.

Jane Dudman

Guardian launches Charity Awards

Wed, 27 May 2009 16:33:22 GMT

The Guardian Charity Awards 2009 recognise small, innovative UK charities that make a real difference to people's lives

The government wants the voluntary sector to take an even bigger role in delivering public services - and this year's Guardian Charity Awards 2009, launched on 27 May, illustrate how even relatively small charities can make a big difference to people's lives.
Last year's winners include Romford-based charity Motorvations, which workds with educationally excluded and at-risk teenagers, providing practice workshops and programmes in art, music, and design.
Once again, this year's awards are for charities with an annual income of between £5,000 and £1m that deliver practical answers to pressing problems.
Each of the winning charities receive £1,000, a PC and consultancy and media advice.
More details are available on the Guardian's awards website. The judging panel, chaired by David Brindle, the Guardian's public services editor, includes Sarah Brown, president of PiggyBankKids, and Jane Asher, president of the National Autistic Society.

Senior civil servants resist diversity

Tue, 26 May 2009 11:17:51 GMT

In the 16 years since Clara Arokiasamy first investigated the poor showing of black and Asian managers at the highest echelons of the civil service, little has changed in management practice to encourage true diversity and cohesion

Over the past decade there has been a small but welcome increase in the number of black and Asian middle managers in both the public and private sectors. But this trend is not reflected in the higher echelons of public sector management and there remains a disturbingly low level of black and Asian representation in senior management posts in both the civil service and in local government
In the civil service as a whole, the percentage of minority ethnic civil servants rose from 5.7% in 1997 to 8.3%% by 2007 and the present figure of 8.5% is regarded by the civil service as being "broadly representative" of the population as a whole. The main aim is to increase the stark under-representation in the Senior Civil Service to 5% by 2013. But over the same decade, the figures for senior black and Asian managers have remained at a dismal 3.5% and the figures for local authorities are even worse, with only 2.7% of all officers from an ethnic minority and an even lower figure for chief executives and executive directors.
Despite the uphill struggle, a few black and Asian candidates do make it into senior management. But at what cost?
Sixteen years ago, I researched black and Asian employees' perceptions of racial conflict at work in a London local authority. The key findings made grim reading. It was a common perception among respondents that their skin colour was sufficient to produce discriminatory responses from their employers, that they were consistently being overlooked for promotion in favour of less qualified white peers or sub-ordinates, and were not being given opportunities to lead on high profile projects. Other complaints included the marginalisation of their seniority and intellectual contributions; the undermining of their status by politicians, senior bureaucrats and sub-ordinates; hostile response to their attempts to challenge institutional racism; isolation and burn-out; and a lack of support. Management procedures were widely deemed ineffective in managing complaints of racism and discrimination and there was widespread use of the "divide and rule" tactic, favouring of one minority group over another, which encouraged inter-ethnic rivalry and the division of minority managers into the"acceptable" minorities: those willing to legitimise the organisation's status quo; and the others perceived as change agents, who were able to challenge those practices deemed racist.
So what has changed since then? I recently renewed connections with a number of people either directly involved in my research or employed in local government at that time. I also met a number of black and Asian senior managers, human resource executives,and independent advisers who contacted me with their perceptions and personal stories following the publication of my article on the exclusion of women of colour from the cultural sector (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/11/government-female-minority-appointments).
Sadly, all of them echoed the previous findings and most felt the situation had worsened. Many feel the 2000 amendment to the race relations act was limited to creating policies, leaving the practice and culture of organisations unchallenged. More dangerously, a culture of complacency among politicians and employers is perceived to have replaced the urgency for change witnessed in the 80s and 90s.
One person I spoke to parted company with the Senior Civil Service and is now a freelance consultant; but feels similar problems exist in the consultancy world. Another individual was considering taking formal action. These are not isolated incidents. There are many other similar stories which are not made public because employers choose to settle out of court.
Of course there are those, albeit fewer in number, keen to counter this negative perspective with positive tales of success. They dismiss the accusation that they are compliant or tokenistic by arguing that change can only be attained by being part of the system, even if it requires condoning poor race equality performance.
Four years ago, at a seminar about the state of minorities in the public sector, I heard an Asian senior civil servant whisper: "This is after all their country - we need to be grateful that we have these jobs". Perhaps she had forgotten that she was British too.
No one objects to those who have had positive experiences or wants to dismiss their achievements. But what many oppose is their collusion with politicians and employers in being presented as the ultimate voice for black and Asian managers, used to dismiss experience and evidence of racial inequalities.
Successive national and local governments which have tinkered with race equality and cultural diversity need to wake up to the fact that no amount of recruitment drives, rhetoric about community cohesion, workforce surveys, or parading selective role models, will create a racially diverse workforce until public sector employers are made accountable and action is taken to change management practices which feed invisible and overt discrimination against visible minorities, and develop new models responsive to the needs and talents of all citizens.

Clara Arokiasamy, director of Kalai, an international consultancy in organisation development, writes and comments on cultural diversity and human rights.

Going to work in the 21st century

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:59:00 GMT

Despite reports to the contrary, job tenure is increasing

New Capitalism? The Transformation of Work, by Kevin Doogan, Polity, £16.99

The basic idea that change at work has been systematically oversold is now widely accepted. We were told of the erosion of long-term commitments at work. In place of the traditional full-time job a host of "contingent" forms of labour were taking their place - temporary, casual, self-employed, part-time.

And it was not just excitable journalists and futurologists with their eyes on the turning of the century who helped the story on its way. Some of the leading social scientific minds of our generation - Sennett, Giddens, Beck, Castells - have contributed a set of narratives that Kevin Doogan bundles together as "new capitalism" before ransacking them with impressive mastery of both data and theoretical literature.
Together these narratives amounted to a message of fear. Whizzing information flows, footloose capital and accelerating technology created instability and deteriorating conditions that no structure, institution or nation state was capable of withstanding. Manpower, the temping firm, was held up as the largest employer in the US (though as Doogan points out, it depends how you count employees and in truth the claim is baseless).

It was always hard to square many of these visions with the statistical evidence. Countries supposedly at the forefront of the purported "transformations", such as the US and UK, had low rates of temporary and self-employed work; arguably they remain the exemplar job-holding societies. Doogan's great service is to challenge so comprehensively such dominant theories, even suggesting job tenure is lengthening in some developed nations.

The difficulty is in explaining why people feel greater insecurity than seems warranted by the evidence - why "discursive reality" and "material reality" have parted company. Doogan accuses leading commentators who are instinctively sympathetic to the plight of working people as being, in effect, stooges for neo-liberalism by overstating the powerlessness of workers. The "postmodern turn" in sociology has led the discipline to see instability, fragmentation and thin air wherever it looks.

If new capitalism has long been awaiting this damning critique, what is missing is a fresh description of what it is like to work in the 21st century.

Stephen Overell is associate director of the Work Foundation

Government climbs down from 2% pay target for public sector staff

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:49:00 GMT

'There was no 2% limit' officials say

The government has climbed down from its 2% pay target. Last month, the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell wrote to Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of civil service union the PCS, to inform him that Whitehall departments were free to award staff more than 2% salary rises. It follows a similar letter from Yvette Cooper, the chief secretary of the Treasury, in September to the public sector unions.

Both letters claim "there is no 2% limit on public sector pay" and that there never has been, but that's a question of semantics. It is true that the government's pay policy states that increases should "reflect the recruitment and retention situation of a particular labour market", be affordable and value for money and "consistent with the Bank of England's 2% inflation target". It is also true that as such, the guidance does not specify 2% as a target for pay rises.

But a number of settlements in the 2007 pay round belie this view. For the NHS, the police and the Prison Service, there was a clear target of 2%. In each case, the pay review body (or arbitration committee for the Prison Service) recommended settlements above 2%, but the government staged the payments to bring down the increases below 2%. According to Ken Mulkearn at Incomes Data Services, this is evidence that in reality, there was a specific 2% target.

Either way, the perception was that there was a pay cap and is supported by guidance to departments from Dusty Amroliwala, director of civil service workforce at the Cabinet Office, which says there was a limit in the 2008-9 pay round. "This means that the level of revalorisation ... or the increase to pay range maxima ... is limited to no more than 2%," his guidance notes. But departments could pay more, "provided that the average remains no higher than 2%".

The implication is that the government regards its line on 2% pay rises as a mistake. "The government has moved away from a policy of confrontation to conciliation," says Mulkearn and points to the fact that a number of the settlements in 2008 were well above 2%.

Of course, there is some evidence that the government needed to relax its stance. With the consumer prices index reaching over 5% in autumn and at one point being higher than the retail prices index, continuing to insist on 2% when the Bank of England had failed to meet this inflation target was embarrassing. And with some economists talking darkly of deflation, the government may feel it can afford to allow more leeway in pay awards.

Departments will also be able to use efficiency savings for paying staff. The Treasury says this is "a very limited measure" for next year's pay round. They will only be able to "recycle" savings in this way, if the money goes on workforce reform - addressing pay differences between departments, adopting shorter pay ranges and improving support (ie bonuses) for good performance.

How this will work in practice is opaque. Will there be a single pot that can be used right across the public sector or will it be done on a department by department basis? If the latter, those departments which haven't made as many savings as others will be at a comparative disadvantage.

There may also be movement on the unions' long-held wish for a more fundamental reform of civil service pay arrangements. The Cabinet Office may consider the unions' case that having in excess of 200 bargaining units in the civil service is not the most efficient way of doing things. "We would be willing to consider evidence-based proposals to support any arguments that you may have for change," Amroliwala told the FDA union.

But proposals will have to go past the powerful permanent secretary employee relations group, a committee of permanent secretaries and senior civil servants, who may be resistant to change.

These measures do not herald much wriggle room. "Expectations amongst unions and staff around pay increases for staff at the top of their pay ranges should however be dampened," Amroliwala warned colleagues. "The strong likelihood remains that departments' budget constraints will continue to limit consolidated increases on the pay range ceiling for staff."

Abusive behaviour against public sector staff is rising

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:22:00 GMT

Abusive behaviour against public sector staff is rising and action is still piecemeal, writes Anna Bawden

Many public sector workers will be relieved the festive season is over - far from being a time of goodwill to all, for those working in the NHS, the police and social services, it is a time of heightened danger of assault by inebriated clients or members of the public.

As drunkenness increases during the Christmas and New Year celebrations, so too does the risk of violence against public workers. According to the British Crime Survey, victims believe that in 40% of assaults and 31% of threats at work, the attack was alcohol-fuelled.
But December is not the only dangerous time. In fact, violence is an occupational hazard for large swaths of the public sector. According to figures from the Health and Safety Executive, public sector workers are the most likely to be victims of serious violence. As the graph shows, six out of the 10 sectors with the highest rates of violence were in the public sector.

Of the more than 6,000 incidents reported to the HSE, almost 1,468 were against care assistants and home carers, 731 were against police officers, 627 were against nurses and 467 were against prison officers. Proportionally, staff in the Prison Service, the police and the NHS are in most danger (bus and coach drivers are also at risk but are mainly private sector employees).

The HSE's figures are based on incidents reported through the regulations on reporting injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences, so they only include cases where the victim needed at least three days off work. The data does not capture minor assaults and many cases are not reported. The frequency of violence is actually much, much higher.

The Prison Service's own figures show that for the year to April 2008, 12,773 staff were assaulted, while the latest data from the NHS Security Management Service (SMS) reveals that there were 55,993 reported assaults against NHS staff. Recent research by Incomes Data Services for public sector union Unison found 71.5% of custody staff had been threatened with physical violence, more than 60% had been victims of minor assault and one fifth had been so badly attacked as to need medical treatment. Police community support officers, forensic services, traffic wardens, police station receptionists and security staff are also at particular risk of assault.

In local government, social workers, residential care assistants, library staff and day care workers are most likely to have experienced threatening or violent behaviour. Data from 2005 surveys found 3% of respondents reported having been victims of violence requiring medical assistance or first aid, while 14% said they had been physically threatened.

Tough measures

While some public sector professions do involve an element of risk, unions and other commentators feel much more could be done to mitigate the danger to staff and pose the question of why public employers have made so little headway in tackling the problem. Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, says: "It's disgraceful that violence against nurses, paramedics, social workers and other public sector workers is on the increase and we need tough measures to deal with it. No one should have to put up with violence and abuse just for doing their job."

Part of the problem is the perception by some staff that their employers do not take violence seriously enough. Around a third of victims of workplace violence or abuse do not report it. While in some cases, the individual may feel the incident was too trivial, 14% said they did not believe management would have done anything even if they had reported it. The public sector also has a patchy record in terms of monitoring the extent of the problem. While the NHS collates data centrally, there are no comparable figures for local government or the civil service. "If we are going to stop the violence we must have accurate, up-to-date information about the number, nature and where these attacks are happening," says Prentis. "A national database is a vital first step towards knowing the extent of the problem and how to better protect the workforce."

Preventative action is also piecemeal. The exception is the NHS. Following concern that hospital staff were being subjected to excessive danger, the Department of Health established the NHS SMS five years ago. As well as monitoring and collating data, it also promotes conflict resolution training, which is mandatory for all frontline staff in the NHS. Around 90% of trusts now have a dedicated local security management specialist who is on the frontline to deal with issues as they arise. The SMS provides them with support and guidance.

Taking action

Next year, the health department is paying for 30,000 personal alarms to be issued to frontline staff in trusts. Although that is just a drop in the ocean, given that there are 750,000 frontline workers in the NHS, it is better than nothing.

The NHS is also getting tougher with those who attack staff. Criminal sanctions have risen from 51 in 2003-04 to almost 1,000 in the past year and a total of nearly 3,500 since the SMS started work. It has brought 29 private prosecutions against individuals who have assaulted NHS staff, where the police haven't taken the matter further. "If the police won't take action we will consider bringing a private prosecution with the health body. It is important to send out a message that we won't tolerate violence," says Richard Hampton, head of security at the SMS.

"Clearly it is unacceptable that any public sector worker should face abuse or violence while they are doing their job. It is important that where at all possible, incidents are prevented rather than relying on action after the event. The responsibility lies with both employers and staff to ensure that risks are identified, action agreed and importantly taken to ensure that staff can carry out their duties free from fear of abuse."

Ultimately, while prevention is always the best option, there may be a case for giving all public employees the same legal protection as police officers by making it an offence to assault a public sector worker.

public sector pay: government appears unworried

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:00:00 GMT

Public pay appears far down the list of government priorities even as public sector workers strike

In the light of the government's other recent political difficulties, public pay has been the least of its worries. That may be because the opposition parties broadly agree on the need for restraint and because some of the unions involved in action, specifically the National Union of Teachers, have few political friends. But it looked bad, as on a black Thursday, schools shut and civil servants and coastguards took action. Meanwhile the Police Federation asked for judicial review of the decision to stagger constables' pay and strike action by clerical civil servants is ongoing.

At issue is the government's insistence that pay must not rise by more than 2%-2.5% - in order to damp inflation and to enforce control of public spending. Last year's pay rises for nurses and the police were not only capped but staggered, reducing the real terms increase to 1.9%.

There's dispute about how far public sector pay stokes inflation in the economy at large. The decision to peg public pay to the consumer price index has increased the gap between public and private sector pay. Until December 2003, public sector pay rises were based on the all-items retail price index, excluding mortgage interest. The Treasury now prefers the consumer prices index, CPI, which excludes housing costs and so is typically 1% lower than the old measure. Incomes Data Services says private sector pay is rising at about 4% - double the rate of the public sector.

Parts of the public sector are being capped more strictly than others, just as pay rises for the different groups in recent years exhibited no logic to do with performance or productivity. Pay offers for the Armed Forces, prison officers and teachers in Scotland averaged 2.7% while nurses (in England and Wales) will get 2.75% this year, 2.4% next year and 2.25% in 2010-11. Under the three-year deal, if inflation exceeds expectations, unions can appeal for adjustments to restore purchasing power.

Efforts to appease council workers were criticised as empty gestures. Local government employers increased their pay offer to 2.45% from 2.2% and 3% for the lowest paid, which matches the proposed settlement for teachers in England and Wales.

But Unison claims that even with the extra payment, the lowest earners will still take home less than they could get at Tesco. The union says the lowest payscale for local government is £11,577 a year - £6 an hour, compared to £6.25 an hour at Tesco and £12,182 in the NHS. The GMB union meanwhile pointed out that chief officers' pay has increased by 11% over the past two years.

Discontent is not restricted to England and Wales. In Scotland, council employees threatened to walk out for the first time in nearly a decade, even though their pay offer - 7.5% over three years, equivalent to an annual rise of 2.5% - is higher than their counterparts south of the border. They want 5% or £1,000, whichever is highest, three days' additional annual leave and an extra one-day public holiday.