Despite pay freeze top directors still get up to 14 times more than lowest-paid staff

Call on Bradford Council to close wages gap

Bradford Council chief executive Tony Reeves

Call on Bradford Council to close wages gap

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , City Hall Reporter

The gap between Bradford Council’s highest and lowest paid workers has narrowed slightly, new figures reveal.

The authority’s top executives have had their pay frozen over the past year, while other workers have been given a pay rise of one per cent.

But its chief executive Tony Reeves still gets a wage packet of £178,476 a year, 14 times the salary of the lowest paid Bradford Council worker.

Yesterday, Mr Reeves said his pay had been frozen for the past six years.

He said: “Nothing has changed whatsoever, other than the cost of living.”

When asked whether the level of his pay was fair, Mr Reeves said: “That’s not for me to say, really.

“We have to pay a competitive salary, there’s no doubt about that. It’s about market forces. A lot of other places pay their chief executives more than me.”

The authority’s lowest salary is £12,435 a year, a rise from £12,145 a year ago.

The average salary has also increased slightly, from £19,126 last year to £19,317 this year.

Local authority pay rises are negotiated nationally. Across the country, most local authority staff had their pay frozen in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and had a below-inflation pay rise of one per cent in 2013.

Bradford Council’s leader, Councillor David Green, said the authority was “working hard” to raise the pay of those employees earning the least.

He said: “Clearly as a Council we would want to particularly support those people who are on the lowest pay, which we have done through paying the lowest paid in the Council an extra £250 a year when no pay award was given nationally.”

But Councillor Glen Miller, leader of the Conservative Group, said he still “struggled” with the pay level of Mr Reeves and other senior directors.

He said: “The gap between senior management and the people working on the coal face is too excessive and again we need to review the wage structures.”

Councillor Jeanette Sunderland, Liberal Democrat leader, said Council directors were still getting paid too much and there were still too many of them.

But she said Government tax breaks meant the lowest paid were now taking home more of their wages.

She said: “We have got to keep the Council’s finances under control but actually the change in the tax threshold is making a difference.”

The Council’s pay policy will be discussed at a meeting of the full Council on Tuesday.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:53am Thu 20 Mar 14

Whatthejuice says...

The Prime ministers wage is £142,500 and he's running the country, how can CEO of Bradford be paid £178,500?
It's absolutely ridiculous, hope this and all the other overpaid executives' wages are frozen for another 60 years, never mind 6 years.
The Prime ministers wage is £142,500 and he's running the country, how can CEO of Bradford be paid £178,500? It's absolutely ridiculous, hope this and all the other overpaid executives' wages are frozen for another 60 years, never mind 6 years. Whatthejuice
  • Score: 13

7:12am Thu 20 Mar 14

collos25 says...

If this man disappeared of the face of the earth nobody would notice.
If this man disappeared of the face of the earth nobody would notice. collos25
  • Score: 6

7:58am Thu 20 Mar 14

Joedavid says...

“We have to pay a competitive salary, there’s no doubt about that. It’s about market forces. A lot of other places pay their chief executives more than me.”

So why he not moved to get more?
“We have to pay a competitive salary, there’s no doubt about that. It’s about market forces. A lot of other places pay their chief executives more than me.” So why he not moved to get more? Joedavid
  • Score: 5

8:01am Thu 20 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Totally agree with the first two comments. Thankfully Barra has now left and hopefully won't be replaced.
Totally agree with the first two comments. Thankfully Barra has now left and hopefully won't be replaced. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 6

8:05am Thu 20 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Yesterday, Mr Reeves said his pay had been frozen for the past six years.

He said: “Nothing has changed whatsoever, other than the cost of living.”

Should we have a collection for him. The cost of living has gone up, he really must be on the breadline at £178k per year. I'm really upset now reading this, I'm worried Mr Reeves is struggling to cope.
Yesterday, Mr Reeves said his pay had been frozen for the past six years. He said: “Nothing has changed whatsoever, other than the cost of living.” Should we have a collection for him. The cost of living has gone up, he really must be on the breadline at £178k per year. I'm really upset now reading this, I'm worried Mr Reeves is struggling to cope. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 7

8:06am Thu 20 Mar 14

Joedavid says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Totally agree with the first two comments. Thankfully Barra has now left and hopefully won't be replaced.
Tony Reeves might not have moved because he can't get the same other places, but Barra presumably did.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Totally agree with the first two comments. Thankfully Barra has now left and hopefully won't be replaced.[/p][/quote]Tony Reeves might not have moved because he can't get the same other places, but Barra presumably did. Joedavid
  • Score: 4

8:06am Thu 20 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Joedavid wrote:
“We have to pay a competitive salary, there’s no doubt about that. It’s about market forces. A lot of other places pay their chief executives more than me.”

So why he not moved to get more?
Alot of other chief executives would have been sacked for lack of progress too.
[quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: “We have to pay a competitive salary, there’s no doubt about that. It’s about market forces. A lot of other places pay their chief executives more than me.” So why he not moved to get more?[/p][/quote]Alot of other chief executives would have been sacked for lack of progress too. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 4

8:37am Thu 20 Mar 14

bd7 helper says...

Simply put him on a minimum wage
Simply put him on a minimum wage bd7 helper
  • Score: 5

9:42am Thu 20 Mar 14

Grumpygirl says...

It's disgraceful that a socialist Council should allow this disparity and do nothing about it. There should be an immediate pay cut so that no salary is higher than £100k.
It's disgraceful that a socialist Council should allow this disparity and do nothing about it. There should be an immediate pay cut so that no salary is higher than £100k. Grumpygirl
  • Score: 9

9:47am Thu 20 Mar 14

David Shaw says...

Bradford Council should follow the example of lots of other councils across the country and pay the living wage of £7.65 as its lowest rather than minimum wage....
Whilst Mr Reeves is on a lo of money, It always makes me smile when people compare wages with the PM. His wage, may only be £142,500 however he has very little outlay from that, having a house in London and the country provided all bills paid for etc... if you added all the extra benefits up, It amounts to a lot more than Mr Reeves salary .....
Bradford Council should follow the example of lots of other councils across the country and pay the living wage of £7.65 as its lowest rather than minimum wage.... Whilst Mr Reeves is on a lo of money, It always makes me smile when people compare wages with the PM. His wage, may only be £142,500 however he has very little outlay from that, having a house in London and the country provided all bills paid for etc... if you added all the extra benefits up, It amounts to a lot more than Mr Reeves salary ..... David Shaw
  • Score: -7

9:51am Thu 20 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

David Shaw wrote:
Bradford Council should follow the example of lots of other councils across the country and pay the living wage of £7.65 as its lowest rather than minimum wage....
Whilst Mr Reeves is on a lo of money, It always makes me smile when people compare wages with the PM. His wage, may only be £142,500 however he has very little outlay from that, having a house in London and the country provided all bills paid for etc... if you added all the extra benefits up, It amounts to a lot more than Mr Reeves salary .....
But one is running a country and one is running a city.
[quote][p][bold]David Shaw[/bold] wrote: Bradford Council should follow the example of lots of other councils across the country and pay the living wage of £7.65 as its lowest rather than minimum wage.... Whilst Mr Reeves is on a lo of money, It always makes me smile when people compare wages with the PM. His wage, may only be £142,500 however he has very little outlay from that, having a house in London and the country provided all bills paid for etc... if you added all the extra benefits up, It amounts to a lot more than Mr Reeves salary .....[/p][/quote]But one is running a country and one is running a city. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 6

10:04am Thu 20 Mar 14

BaildonGuy says...

Don't the Council believe in payments by results then?
Don't the Council believe in payments by results then? BaildonGuy
  • Score: 5

10:27am Thu 20 Mar 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
Bradford Council should follow the example of lots of other councils across the country and pay the living wage of £7.65 as its lowest rather than minimum wage....
Whilst Mr Reeves is on a lo of money, It always makes me smile when people compare wages with the PM. His wage, may only be £142,500 however he has very little outlay from that, having a house in London and the country provided all bills paid for etc... if you added all the extra benefits up, It amounts to a lot more than Mr Reeves salary .....
But one is running a country and one is running a city.
One is making a pigs ear of running a city more like (and one a pigs ear of running a country, to be fair)!

PM might get house etch, but I bet when you add in the expenses on to Mr Reeves salary, the overall package would be over £200k.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Shaw[/bold] wrote: Bradford Council should follow the example of lots of other councils across the country and pay the living wage of £7.65 as its lowest rather than minimum wage.... Whilst Mr Reeves is on a lo of money, It always makes me smile when people compare wages with the PM. His wage, may only be £142,500 however he has very little outlay from that, having a house in London and the country provided all bills paid for etc... if you added all the extra benefits up, It amounts to a lot more than Mr Reeves salary .....[/p][/quote]But one is running a country and one is running a city.[/p][/quote]One is making a pigs ear of running a city more like (and one a pigs ear of running a country, to be fair)! PM might get house etch, but I bet when you add in the expenses on to Mr Reeves salary, the overall package would be over £200k. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 3

11:07am Thu 20 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Why your defence of your salary is other chief exec's get more, you really don't instill confidence in anyone.

If he could reel off, I did this that and the other (which he can't) to justify his wages he would have a better arguement.
Why your defence of your salary is other chief exec's get more, you really don't instill confidence in anyone. If he could reel off, I did this that and the other (which he can't) to justify his wages he would have a better arguement. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 5

11:26am Thu 20 Mar 14

Rambo says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Why your defence of your salary is other chief exec's get more, you really don't instill confidence in anyone.

If he could reel off, I did this that and the other (which he can't) to justify his wages he would have a better arguement.
Totally true. Its the with the bakers, justifying their bonuses and salaries as their equivalents get them. It's a cheap, easy excuse and the people who pay his wages deserve much better than that.

As I've mentioned, I've had the (dis)pleasure of being in the same room as Mr Reeves (and Barra) for a few minutes through work and even in that brief time they oozed nothing but arrogance and a complete out of touch understanding of the world around them. Tom Riordan at Leeds however who've I've met in similar circumstances is a total opposite.

Reeves should be more accountable for being probably one of the highest earners and paid for by the public. especially when his reign has seen nothing to warrant his enormous salary.

And the way he actually speaks to the public, on the rare occasions he does, is seemingly like its a huge inconvenience to him.

I detest the man and what he stands for.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Why your defence of your salary is other chief exec's get more, you really don't instill confidence in anyone. If he could reel off, I did this that and the other (which he can't) to justify his wages he would have a better arguement.[/p][/quote]Totally true. Its the with the bakers, justifying their bonuses and salaries as their equivalents get them. It's a cheap, easy excuse and the people who pay his wages deserve much better than that. As I've mentioned, I've had the (dis)pleasure of being in the same room as Mr Reeves (and Barra) for a few minutes through work and even in that brief time they oozed nothing but arrogance and a complete out of touch understanding of the world around them. Tom Riordan at Leeds however who've I've met in similar circumstances is a total opposite. Reeves should be more accountable for being probably one of the highest earners and paid for by the public. especially when his reign has seen nothing to warrant his enormous salary. And the way he actually speaks to the public, on the rare occasions he does, is seemingly like its a huge inconvenience to him. I detest the man and what he stands for. Rambo
  • Score: 9

11:28am Thu 20 Mar 14

Rambo says...

*bankers, not bakers.
*bankers, not bakers. Rambo
  • Score: 2

11:51am Thu 20 Mar 14

ade_splat says...

Rambo wrote:
*bankers, not bakers.
I think you forgot the "W" when you corrected the spelling
[quote][p][bold]Rambo[/bold] wrote: *bankers, not bakers.[/p][/quote]I think you forgot the "W" when you corrected the spelling ade_splat
  • Score: 6

12:20pm Thu 20 Mar 14

The Hoffster says...

When asked whether the level of his pay was fair, Mr Reeves said: “That’s not for me to say, really."


That's a lot of words just to say 'No'.
[quote]When asked whether the level of his pay was fair, Mr Reeves said: “That’s not for me to say, really." [/quote] That's a lot of words just to say 'No'. The Hoffster
  • Score: 4

12:46pm Thu 20 Mar 14

bobbyo says...

Pure greed ! So barra,s left ? Laughing his rocks off with his massive salary ! Absolute disgraceful and obscene !
Pure greed ! So barra,s left ? Laughing his rocks off with his massive salary ! Absolute disgraceful and obscene ! bobbyo
  • Score: 5

1:36pm Thu 20 Mar 14

BertSanders says...

Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.
Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting. BertSanders
  • Score: -6

4:29pm Thu 20 Mar 14

collos25 says...

His pay might have been frozen at 178k I do not know how he manages but a look at his expenses will answer that problem.He and his partners in crime appear to claimed more than some people earn but of course the salary and expenses are all justified.May I suggest they all put in their notice and take up jobs with more money that they are so eager to tell us about,
His pay might have been frozen at 178k I do not know how he manages but a look at his expenses will answer that problem.He and his partners in crime appear to claimed more than some people earn but of course the salary and expenses are all justified.May I suggest they all put in their notice and take up jobs with more money that they are so eager to tell us about, collos25
  • Score: 5

4:33pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Joedavid says...

BertSanders wrote:
Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.
Thought we the Council tax payers paid him.
[quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.[/p][/quote]Thought we the Council tax payers paid him. Joedavid
  • Score: 4

4:33pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Joedavid says...

BertSanders wrote:
Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.
Thought we the Council tax payers paid him.
[quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.[/p][/quote]Thought we the Council tax payers paid him. Joedavid
  • Score: 3

6:22pm Thu 20 Mar 14

The Hoffster says...

BertSanders wrote:
Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.
Are you his cleaner ?
[quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.[/p][/quote]Are you his cleaner ? The Hoffster
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Thu 20 Mar 14

BertSanders says...

Joedavid wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.
Thought we the Council tax payers paid him.
Once you have paid your Council Tax it is beyond your jurisdiction. The Council could not possibly ask you and others where they should spend the monies or what they should spend the on.
[quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.[/p][/quote]Thought we the Council tax payers paid him.[/p][/quote]Once you have paid your Council Tax it is beyond your jurisdiction. The Council could not possibly ask you and others where they should spend the monies or what they should spend the on. BertSanders
  • Score: -1

6:40pm Thu 20 Mar 14

BertSanders says...

The Hoffster wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.
Are you his cleaner ?
I am not Mr Reeves cleaner - what makes you think I might be? I suppose that constitutes humour.
[quote][p][bold]The Hoffster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: Mr Reeves was engaged competively - it is a big job and he must be satisfactory to his employers - a left wing Council. It is a salary that many will aspires to rather than the attitude of posters who want a race to the bottom where everybody is poor - they will say everyone could be comfortable - and that is how it would be - no one working - everyone posting.[/p][/quote]Are you his cleaner ?[/p][/quote]I am not Mr Reeves cleaner - what makes you think I might be? I suppose that constitutes humour. BertSanders
  • Score: 3

6:51pm Thu 20 Mar 14

thatsnotmyname says...

Maybe if he actually lived here 178k would be more bearable. At least we would get something back.
Maybe if he actually lived here 178k would be more bearable. At least we would get something back. thatsnotmyname
  • Score: 1

7:34pm Thu 20 Mar 14

BertSanders says...

thatsnotmyname wrote:
Maybe if he actually lived here 178k would be more bearable. At least we would get something back.
If true I agree with you - it is an important job and he should be local rather than on a long commute. Somebody thought he was exceptional for him to get the job It surprises me that these things were not negotiated on appointment. He is in post and responsible for a large revenue and many employees.- narrowing the gap would put a huge strain of Council Tax. I have no doubt a secure contract will be in place. Blame the Council !! -
The appoinment was made when Gordon Brown was filling as many council jobs as he could to increase employment as he saw no danger of boom and bust. It seems he may have been wrong
[quote][p][bold]thatsnotmyname[/bold] wrote: Maybe if he actually lived here 178k would be more bearable. At least we would get something back.[/p][/quote]If true I agree with you - it is an important job and he should be local rather than on a long commute. Somebody thought he was exceptional for him to get the job It surprises me that these things were not negotiated on appointment. He is in post and responsible for a large revenue and many employees.- narrowing the gap would put a huge strain of Council Tax. I have no doubt a secure contract will be in place. Blame the Council !! - The appoinment was made when Gordon Brown was filling as many council jobs as he could to increase employment as he saw no danger of boom and bust. It seems he may have been wrong BertSanders
  • Score: 1

8:17pm Thu 20 Mar 14

sorrow&anger says...

£178k wouldn't be so bad if he earned it. Elsewhere in the T&A we learn that, contrary to the national trend, Bradford's unemployment has gone up yet again. If Reeves can't regenerate Bradford then he should admit defeat and resign. He's had more than enough time to make a difference.
£178k wouldn't be so bad if he earned it. Elsewhere in the T&A we learn that, contrary to the national trend, Bradford's unemployment has gone up yet again. If Reeves can't regenerate Bradford then he should admit defeat and resign. He's had more than enough time to make a difference. sorrow&anger
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree