I HAVE followed the council job evaluation saga with amazement and increasing foreboding.

I was a senior county council manager in three authorities, and in the 1980s took part in a job evaluation.

Managers could debate and influence the salaries of their staff. Staff were only informed of outcomes if upgraded since cutting pay was never contemplated. Those in a downgraded post remained on a protected salary until they left, and were then replaced by new staff on the lower grade.

Surely one party to a contract cannot reduce the salary for a specified job that is not changed, without the other party's agreement, unless the job content has reduced?

If a firm's bankruptcy were imminent, a pay cut across the board might be necessary but that does not apply here.

Even if legal, how could the top managers agree to outcomes that resulted in single parents on £20,000 receiving a £5,000 pay cut, albeit after a few years' protection, or an £18,000 cut for an officer who moved his family to the county for promotion to a £48,000 post?

How will they pay their mortgages etc?

Apart from appalling personal consequences for some individuals and families, what kind of service will we get from staff with immovable resentment and low morale, or from vacancies created by many more able staff who will probably choose to leave a council where leadership seems unfeeling and promotion today could be demotion tomorrow?

A way out needs to be given top priority, for the sake of all.

Either funds should be somehow made available for protecting existing staff salaries until they leave, or if unaffordable, any cuts be limited to a maximum of 5 per cent.

Name and Address supplied.