The ongoing controversy over executive salaries took a new twist this week after a union leader was criticised for taking a 10% pay rise and top mandarins lost their battle to keep their wage details secret.
Christine Blower, head of the National Union of Teachers which is taking part in a national strike next week over pensions, was accused of “breathtaking insensitivity” for taking an inflation-busting pay rise at a time when tens of thousands of NUT members find themselves subject to a pay freeze.
The union’s accounts revealed that Blower’s basic pay increased by nearly £9,000 to £103,000, while her total package, which included benefits, rose by £13,000 to £140,000, up 10.4%. The figure amounts to four times the 2.3% pay increase received by classroom teachers last year and is more than double the rate of inflation.
Even more controversially, Blower received a 16% boost in contributions to her gold-plated pension last year. The union paid 25% of her salary – or £26,000 – into her pension pot, four times the levels typical of the private sector.
Tory MP Nicholas Boles told the Daily Mail: “The salaries of union officials are for members to decide, but it would appear to show fairly breathtaking insensitivity to take a pay rise on this scale when public sector workers are experiencing a pay freeze.”
But an NUT spokesman said that Blower’s salary increase was a result of her moving up the union’s pay scale due to length of service. Pay rises elsewhere had been pegged to the 2.3% received by teachers last year, he added.
The news came to light as the UK’s top public servants lost a battle to prevent details of their salaries being made public. The Information Commissioner told 24 mandarins, lawyers and quango bosses who are paid more than Prime Minister David Cameron that it was not in the public interest for their pay details to remain secret.
Their names were withheld from a list of 332 officials earning salaries of more than £150,000 that was published by the Cabinet Office last year after they refused permission for their identities to be revealed.
But Information Commissioner Christopher Graham ordered the Cabinet Office to disclose their names, following a review triggered by a complaint made by the BBC.
He said: “If you are earning over £150,000 working for a body that is funded by the public purse, then there is now a legitimate expectation that your name and salary details will be disclosed. Being open and transparent is an integral part of being accountable to the taxpayer and, like it or not, this level of disclosure goes with the territory.”
