Friday, January 06, 2012

High incomes funded through forcible removal of OPI

This guy Marryatt has little judgement or empathy. I don't usually find myself amongst those dragging down people who earn high incomes, but when it comes to incomes funded through forcible removal of other people's incomes, I get very toey. I sent this to the DomPost:

Christchurch Council's chief executive, Tony Marryatt, says his salary is based on market rates. This defence ignores that local and central government jobs are funded from compulsory taxes or rates. Christchurch citizens have no recourse should they object to Mr Marryatt's salary or increase. To be fair, in monopolistic circumstances the customer may also lack a voice but generally, in the market, an aggrieved customer or shareholder  expresses it through withdrawal of purchases or investment.

Marryatt says after February he didn't have a  weekend off in 9 weeks. At least he had paid employment. Some would be eternally grateful for a job paying the total of the chief executive's  $68,000 increase alone.

He insists he is not refusing the 14.4 percent pay increase or giving it to charity. I think he has lost sight of who his real employer is. For a so-called public servant Tony Marryatt shows little public-spiritedness.


Paulus said...

I am not interested in public spiritness. In the interest of fair judgement the taking of this increase is in poor judgement, and that is what a CEO is expected to have. He could have declined with thanks in current circumstances.
Sadly he is one of a number of Local Government CEO's who churn round every few years getting paid more substantial sums as part of the system we now have.

Allan said...

The guy obviously has a misguided opinion of his worth. No one in any position funded by the theft of money from the rate or taxpayers should be paid such an exhorbitant salary. The Mayor should cancel his contract immediately on the grounds that there is not value for money being shown by his employment.

Manolo said...

Trougher. All salary and little accountability.

mike said...

It is interesting that the only excuse he can offer to justify his salary is that it is the "market rate." What is the market rate? Is it the 'buyers' perceived ability to pay for the level of service offered by him based on supply/demand? Not bloody likely!
Maybe his high remuneration is only half the problem. Maybe the real problem is the army of state-worshipping, bossyboot busybodies in the other council offices drawing a handsome salary to stand in the way of progress in every council office up and down the country.

mike said...

The Chief Justice 'earns' $460 000 pa plus (publicly funded) superannuation benefits. No mention of other benefits and conditions of employment here.

Anonymous said...

$500,000 per annum is exorbitant?

That's NZ dollars?


Has this turned in to Red Alert?

In the real world, that's not even a good bonus

As with almost all managers in NZ - public or private sector - Marryatt is underpaid by a factor of 5-10 compared with comparable jobs overseas.

The Chief Justice 'earns' $460 000 pa plus (publicly funded) superannuation benefits

Again this is clearly massively underpaid - even though (compared with Maryatt) the CJ has almost no management responsibility.

Tall poppy syndrome & the great NZ clobbering machine starts here.