The fall-out from last week’s budget debate continues.
Senior Liberal Democrats, supported by the bulk of the
Conservative group, continue to argue that their “Mickey Mouse” budget amendment
they will magic up £3.672 million by cutting “consultants and agency staff.” In
particular they argue that “agency staff are expensive - sometimes costing the
council as much as double the rate of workers on contracts.” Deputy Leader of
the Liberal Democrats Alex Folkes has claimed that “the bulk of the savings
should be made by transferring agency workers onto contract. Same staff,
same work, savings for the council.”
To combat these claims, Council Leader Jim Currie has issued
a letter to members. He trashes the claim that “it costs twice as much to
employ an agency worker as a permanent member of staff.” He states: “This is
not true. The facts are that while costs vary, in most cases it costs roughly
the same to employ an agency worker as it does to employ a permanent member of
staff when all the costs are taken into account.”
Tellingly, Mr Currie makes it clear that “the decision by
the Full Council to cut the budget for agency workers will affect frontline
services and may lead to the loss of a substantial number of jobs.” He also
states that “the suggestion that we can actually create jobs by transferring
agency workers to become permanent members of staff is at best naïve and at
worst nonsensical.”
Mr Currie has also informed members that “work is currently
taking place on identifying how these cuts can be made and a report setting out
the implications for individual services will be published as quickly as
possible so that staff who may be at risk of redundancy have the earliest
possible notice and members of the public using these services can start making
alternative arrangements.”
The full text of Mr Currie’s letter is as follows:
Dear Members
Following recent comments on the relative costs of employing
agency workers compared with permanent members of staff I wanted to provide
Members with the facts of the situation.
During last week’s budget debate it was stated that it costs
twice as much to employ an agency worker as a permanent member of staff.
This is not true.
The facts are that while costs vary, in most cases it costs
roughly the same to employ an agency worker as it does to employ a permanent
member of staff when all the costs are taken into account.
For example employing an agency worker on an F Grade to work
in one of our libraries / one stop shops or in our contact centre to
cover sickness or any other unplanned absence would cost £4,047 for a ten week
period. (This includes the costs of pay, national insurance and agency
fees).
Employing a permanent member of staff on an F Grade to do
the same job over the same period would cost £4,366. (This includes the
costs of pay, national insurance, holiday, sickness, pension and the initial
costs of recruitment and selection
Similarly the costs of employing an agency worker on a J
Grade (eg programme analyst / procurement officer) for a longer period to work
on a specific project would cost around £24,650 for an eight month period.
The costs of employing a permanent member of staff on the
same grade for the same period of time would be £24,884. There are exceptions
to this - ie Social Workers but the market and geographical location of Cornwall
dictates that these workers attract a premium.
The Council uses agency staff to manage increased workload
in specific areas or to cover sickness or vacant posts. This
flexibility is very important to ensure we make best use of our staff and our
resources. Over the past twelve months 31% of the agency workers employed
by the Council have been used to support workloads for short periods of time
and 16% to cover for sickness and unplanned absences, with the remaining
employed to support project work, holiday cover, secondment cover and maternity
leave.
Almost 48% of these workers were employed in providing
social care services, with 20% in customer services, such as libraries / one
stop shops and the call centre, and around 12 % providing administrative
support, including revenues and benefits, housing, legal, and finance services.
It makes sense to engage agency workers for a short period
of time to cover a period of increased workload or sickness. For example; we
brought in 25 temporary workers to the contact centre help deal with queries
from the public during the introduction of the new waste contract.
It also makes sense to use agency staff on longer term
assignments where specialist skills are at a premium and where recruitment on a
fixed term contract would not be sufficient to attract suitable
candidates. For roles where the market is a national rather than a local
one Cornwall’s relative
geographical isolation means that an agency or interim solution is a practical
way of meeting short to medium term resource requirements.
The facts are that the decision by the Full Council to cut
the budget for agency workers will affect frontline services and may lead to
the loss of a substantial number of jobs. . The suggestion that we can
actually create jobs by transferring agency workers to become permanent members
of staff is at best naïve and at worst nonsensical.
With less than a month to go before the new budget comes
into force, the cuts agreed by the Full Council need to be implemented as
quickly as possible to prevent us having to make even further reductions in
services. Work is currently taking place on identifying how these cuts
can be made and a report setting out the implications for individual services
will be published as quickly as possible so that staff who may be at risk of
redundancy have the earliest possible notice and members of the public using
these services can start making alternative arrangements.
Regards
Jim
James Currie CC
Leader
Cornwall Council
