Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Two £38k Haringey Council Jobs Advertised for Haringey People
**Clive Carter won't believeeeeeeeee this**
About the role
Haringey is an exciting, challenging and rapidly-changing borough, and we’re looking for an ambitious communications professional to join our busy press office.
About you
You will play a key role in helping us to enhance the reputation of the council, as well as promoting the borough as a great place to live, work and invest.
You will be involved with the production of our flagship residents’ magazine Haringey People, will develop and implement effective proactive campaigns and will write press releases and copy for internal and external publications.
Rest of advert here
(Highlights are the bits that made me spit out my drink in disbelief)
Thoughts?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
Not one damn mention about communicating essential information to residents... just reputation building and promoting, isnt that the definition of propaganda?
Meanwhile jobs in the frontline services working with vulnerable people are lost, as that is when we have 'budget constraints'
What planet is this council on...? *smacks head in utter desperation for sanity*
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Seema, I don't belieeeeeve it!
Actually I do. It shows where the priorities of the council truly lie.
The job ad makes it clear that this is a PR role and not, as you say, one of imparting essential information.
A flagship is normally the biggest ship in a fleet of vessels. There is no fleet of council publications. Dinghy might be more apt. Or maybe, Titanic?
I think of the good that £76,000 could do in other areas that the council has cut back on. If this sum does not include pension benefits, then the actual cost is higher.
I am sad and sickened.
Well spotted Seema.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
If the 38K is the advertised salary, the total cost to the Council, with Nat Insurance, pensions, etc will be about 50% higher.
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Shouldn't HOL submit a corporate application for these two posts? But what need of parodying this outfit when they're so good at it themselves? If they'd give that £76K of our C.Tax to Veolia they could probably hire five or six ft street cleaners.
-
Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on
-
Given the damage to the Council's reputation following the announcement of it's status as 'worst', and the consequent difficulty this will cause in staff recruitment, I am shocked that these posts are only attracting 38k.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
What we seem to have, Paul, is an assertion by Eric Pickles the basis of which I've yet to understand.
Now maybe someone will think: "He's a Labour councillor, he would say that, wouldn't he?" So let me state that as both a Haringey resident and a councillor I do want to know how well or badly this and other services are doing.
If someone makes serious and apparently evidenced criticism, I want to know if it's accurate or not. And if it shows a problem then I want it fixed. But for this we need information sources we can trust which provide reliable facts and figures. The Council's Press & Publicity staff themselves rely on information from the service departments. So as part of the "ground rules" they too should be able to expect - and if necessary insist - on getting accurate figures and explanations which will stand up to scrutiny.
Having a culture where it's expected that "hard" facts are gathered and evidence tested, should apply equally to information given to residents.
This is a key reason for my suggestion to de-politician council magazines. Does anyone know if this has been tried elsewhere in the UK? I also thought that trust could be built, for example, with the involvement of, say, respected academics or national journalists who live locally.
Establishing the "Truth" of a local story must not be allowed to become a competition to see which party donkey can bray the loudest and longest.
(Tottenham Hale ward Councillor)
-
-
Alan, any views* on the subject of this thread, the seeking of two PR employees for the "flagship" publication at a total cost of more than £100,000 per annum?
Do you think that this particular £100,000 p.a. could be better spent?
*It would be most helpful if you could respond wearing your Haringey resident hat, rather than your Labour Councillor hat (also, I'm not convinced that the provision of more reading lists would necessarily advance understanding on this particular point, but don't let me stop you).
-
-
Clive, a thought experiment. Two car tyres need replacing: do you get high quality new ones? (We did.) Or maybe save money with a smaller car? Or - like you - buy a motor bike?
My suggestion takes a few steps even further back and is like a review of transport arrangements. (But please don't call it a Kommission.)
What's with your allergy to books? It is just newspapers you read in Stroud Green Library?
-
-
Alan are we to be treated to yet more bizarre analogies? Or as an elected representative, do you feel responsibility for how public money is spent?
-
-
Billy I too wondered about whether this £100k to £120k spending on PR represents additional staff or replacements. It would be more disgusting if they were additional staff in the PR area, because there have been ugly cutbacks elsewhere.
It's slightly (only slightly) less reprehensible if these are replacement positions, but that would raise some curious questions.
- if two staff left of their own accord, why was a golden opportunity not taken to trim the bloated propaganda publication, a cut that is desperately needed - e.g. needed to help fund volunteer groups slashed by the council.
- why did the previous staff leave? Not all boroughs are in need of their reputation being (artificially) enhanced. Some boroughs achieve good reputations, not through PR, but through good governance and effective management. Did two previous staff fear damage to their own reputations, by continuing to be employed by this Borough?
-
-
Clive, the point of my analogy and the reason for my original reply was because I was trying not to focus simply on one advert. In a team I may know less about than you.
Instead I was trying to offer some constructive thoughts about how local councils can carry out their information-giving functions - especially for people who don't use the net. But doing this task without it turning into party PR. Do councils have an information giving function? Yes they do - in many cases it is a statutory duty. Should they give their staff proper salaries and conditions? Yes, they should.
But should councils - wherever they are - consider efficiency savings in how they do this work? Of course they should. And consider what could be done with a smaller team? Or a team where work is shared out differently? Yes, again. Should all councils benchmark with other similar councils to help them think about these issues? Of course they should.
But you seem to want me to - as someone who has not been involved in any of these processes - to make an instant judgement about one advert.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
