Since I opened my verbal archive, it seems appropriate to address the comments that this matter has gathered and Taija's response, which has also been linked to my original post. Firstly, the headline of the local news story is accurate. A proposed increase of that sum has been presented (note that the salary sum is not the same as salary). The proposal is Taija's own, as she states in her response. However, Taija's response notes that it also includes retroactively paid salaries. This is true as well, since the matter is ongoing and there may be retroactive salary payments. However, this detail does not make the headline incorrect in any way, but the reader might conclude from this that she is seeking a 68% increase in her salary, which is not true. The fact remains: that fair €54k is, in Taija's opinion, her money, meaning the headline is entirely correct in using the term "proposed for herself." In my post, I made a comparison: Keusote's financial difficulties and Taija's salary increase demands. The comparison is relevant. Keusote's financial difficulties have been known for a long time, even before Taija started her position in October 2024. For some reason, this matter has stirred strong feelings on both sides. Many have jumped to (wrong) conclusions too quickly, and many have passionately defended Taija. I rarely receive private messages about any post, but I received several regarding this post. They have shed light on the background of the issue, and I will not address them here in any way because they are private messages. However, I would like to collectively ask several of you, that when you have passionately been cutting public administration and state-owned companies' costs and criticized the significantly higher salaries of the public sector compared to the private sector, why does the issue become completely different when it involves a person familiar to us all? Were the salaries of the leaders and heads of the welfare areas not excessive now that it comes to Taija? (translated)
