Unions don't want to freeze Public Pay

Sleepy

Public and Private Sector wages cannot be expected to be equal while the public sector have such better working conditions, pension entitlements, lack of accountability for poor performance etc.

Zombrex

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

What? This is the most backward statement I have ever seen about business. Profits are re-invested in businesses to improve and expand them in the real world, or did you think there was a fat man chortling through a haze of cigar smoke at the top of every firm? Businesses where the principals keep most of the capital are about two steps away from being devoured wholesale, in my opinion.

Profits are invested back into the business, but that isn't the same as improving the customer experience.

The majority of companies invest the majority of the profits into way to make more money. The classic example is Ryanair. Ryanair has been unimproving its service for years, despite increased profits. They have been spending their money on widening their market to increase their profits, not improve the customer experience.

How could they possibly do such a crazy thing! Won't everyone take there custom to another company. No, because the other companies that do provide a better standard of experience (such as Aer Lingus) cost more.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Er again, what? The revenue from existing companies? Mobile phone groups have a very high barrier to entry in terms of cost, its almost impossible for a small startup to get into that area, so it naturally lends itself to cartel behaviour.

You're right, it does. But the most business have a high (or relatively high) barrier to entry. That is the major flaw in the idea of competition as the great improver of customer experience. It only works if it is costs very little to enter the market with an improved experience. There are hardly any industries where that is the case. And even when there is you have to fight customer empathy and brand loyalty to stay a float with enough customers to actually make any kind of difference.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Not to mention that the price of an SMS has nothing whatsoever to do with customer service...

You don't think paying €0.09 for something that is basically free has anything to do with customer service ... you must have a very narrow definition of that term.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

What are you talking about. Every company is clawing to get an edge over every other company.

What are you, junior cert business studies student?

Companies are only "clawing" to get an edge over their competitors if that edge is cost effective and has high return. Otherwise it isn't worth it. Again risk and reward. Getting an edge is often a very expensive excersise.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But if you don't someone else will.

No, most of the time they won't.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Citing large national groups with prohibitive entry costs that bear more similarity to the public sector than any productive private sector is just not applicable.

As opposed to what, the little shop on the corner? :rolleyes:

You may not have noticed but you get the vast majority of both your products and services (since you seem to see a huge difference in the economy of both) from "large national groups"

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

How could they possibly do such a crazy thing! Won't everyone take there custom to another company. No, because the other companies that do provide a better standard of experience (such as Aer Lingus) cost more.

surely the moral of this story is that people are choosing cheap air fare with 'no frills' to get from point a to point b. if that's the choice they want to make, then they and ryanair will both benefit. the customer won't get a free can of coke, the seats might not have the newest plumpest pillows, but they save a few quid that they can spend on cocktails and speed when they get to their destination.

K-9

Wicknight wrote: »

Profits are invested back into the business, but that isn't the same as improving the customer experience.

The majority of companies invest the majority of the profits into way to make more money. The classic example is Ryanair. Ryanair has been unimproving its service for years, despite increased profits. They have been spending their money on widening their market to increase their profits, not improve the customer experience.

And is widening their market a bad thing for consumers? They give a fantastic choice of destinations, unlike Aer Lingus 20 years ago.

thehighground wrote:

How could they possibly do such a crazy thing! Won't everyone take there custom to another company. No, because the other companies that do provide a better standard of experience (such as Aer Lingus) cost more.

Eh, no. They are often cheaper or the extra cost is balanced by the airports AL use being more central to a location. Take Paris as an example, I picked AL for the sake of 20/30 euros as it's Paris, not Beauvois!

thehighground wrote:

You're right, it does. But the most business have a high (or relatively high) barrier to entry. That is the major flaw in the idea of competition as the great improver of customer experience. It only works if it is costs very little to enter the market with an improved experience. There are hardly any industries where that is the case. And even when there is you have to fight customer empathy and brand loyalty to stay a float with enough customers to actually make any kind of difference.

True to an extent. Take Ryanair again though, it wasn't an improved experience.

SimpleSam06

mountainyman wrote: »

Profits have to be reported every quarter. That's the reality. The fat man chortling at the top of the business is you and me through our investment and pension funds.

I'll give you an example. One prominent real estate agency recently had to reduce wages for hundreds of staff because of the downturn in the property market. Despite having a turnover in the millions, their profits were measured in hundreds of thousands. Where was all the money going? One third of it was going to the salaries of the directors. This is an example of a sick, unsustainable business model, and is not typical of a well run business. Profit reports don't mean a damn thing.

Also, I haven't got a pension or investment fund.

mountainyman wrote: »

I don't see the relevance tbh. Barriers to entry are common in may businesses. Oligopolies are common.

Only on one level, the national level, and usually in cases where massive dug-in infrastructure is required. Everywhere else they are relatively uncommon.

mountainyman wrote: »

What is the productive private sector? mobile phone companies are useful, energy companies are useful, large scale retailers are useful, banks are useful All are oligopolies.

These are not productive sectors. In fact all of the mobile phone companies (I'm assuming you mean companies that make mobile phones) are not domestic, representing money pouring out of the economy.

mountainyman wrote: »

as for text messages not being a service so what. this discussion is about unions

Would unionisation reduce the cost of text messages?

mountainyman wrote: »

Wrong. This adversarial attitude is of value to the workers. That is the purpose of the union to represent the workers not to help the company.

It was of value to workers, back when working conditions and workers rights were appalling. However in this day an age unions have the capability of gouging out a business, reducing competitiveness and limiting expansion, working with employers towards a better future is required. Germany is a good example of that. Situations change, and either attitudes change to match that or attitudes get changed by reality, whether they like it or not.

mountainyman wrote: »

Anyway you are just strawmanning any group of workers who closed their employers business on a whim would find the business closed permanently.

As has happened many times. The difference here however is that we are talking about the public sector, where the business can't close. Thus these parasites represent an ongoing burden on you, me and everyone else who pays taxes in this country.

Wicknight wrote: »

They have been spending their money on widening their market to increase their profits, not improve the customer experience.

Ryanair has identified a simple fact. People view air travel largely as a bus service. They don't care about customer service, they care about the price. If people cared about customer service, Ryanair would put their profits into improving that.

Simply put, in that business, customer service is not a factor in competitiveness.

Wicknight wrote: »

You're right, it does. But the most business have a high (or relatively high) barrier to entry.

Nowhere near as high as the mobile carrier industry, never mind the regulatory issues. I might point out that what seems like a high barrier to you is not the case for most businesspeople.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the major flaw in the idea of competition as the great improver of customer experience.

Competition only has an effect where it matters to customers. This is why you get much lower prices from Ryanair (which I don't see you crying about) but no improvements in customer service, nobody gives a rats ass about it. Its not a competitive factor.

Wicknight wrote: »

You don't think paying €0.09 for something that is basically free has anything to do with customer service ... you must have a very narrow correct definition of that term.

Fixed that for ya.

Wicknight wrote: »

Companies are only "clawing" to get an edge over their competitors if that edge is cost effective and has high return. Otherwise it isn't worth it. Again risk and reward. Getting an edge is often a very expensive excersise.

Heh. But if they don't, someone else will, and then they will have no profits at all. This has been the driver of our entire society for centuries.

That you don't know this displays profound ignorance of anything to do with business.

Wicknight wrote: »

As opposed to what, the little shop on the corner? :rolleyes:

You may not have noticed but you get the vast majority of both your products and services (since you seem to see a huge difference in the economy of both) from "large national groups"

Ya, let me spell this out for you. You don't buy most of your products from large national groups, you buy them from national (or multinational) retailers who in turn purchase them from large multinational groups or first level producers. Multinationals operate in a ferociously competitive market no matter where they operate, and this seperates them from the public sector in this country by light years.

Hotblack Desiato

gurramok wrote: »

No-one answered the principal point of a pay freeze, if it does not happen, where will the money come from to pay for the pay rises?

Inflation. Any increase given will almost certainly work out to be less than inflation, as the current deal has done. So in real terms there will be a pay cut. The unions will be thrown some crumb or other to sell this to their members (e.g. - and again going from past experience - a meaningless 'commitment' to social housing which ends up amounting to nothing.)

SimpleSam06

ninja900 wrote: »

Inflation. Any increase given will almost certainly work out to be less than inflation, as the current deal has done. So in real terms there will be a pay cut. The unions will be thrown some crumb or other to sell this to their members (e.g. - and again going from past experience - a meaningless 'commitment' to social housing which ends up amounting to nothing.)

The public sector has been receiving pay rises far in excess of inflation for the better part of a decade now. Its reached the stage where with the number of people employed in that sector and the amount of money they are being paid could actually be causing inflation to rise.

The scales need to be balanced, and fairly harshly, which means layoffs, austerity measures, and pay freezes, as well as a full reworking of the pension system (which is already happening I think). The government's attrition approach to the public sector is no longer sufficient.

Zombrex

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

surely the moral of this story is that people are choosing cheap air fare with 'no frills' to get from point a to point b. if that's the choice they want to make, then they and ryanair will both benefit. the customer won't get a free can of coke, the seats might not have the newest plumpest pillows, but they save a few quid that they can spend on cocktails and speed when they get to their destination.

But the point that is being ignored is that I, a consumer, going to another airline, has no effect on this.

The idea that we can simply improve my standard of service by voting with our feet is a myth.

The public sector is require to provide a level of service even if it is not profitable to do so. That can never be implemented by the private sector.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you've no control over this as an individual, but as a consumer among other consumers you can vote with your feet and if enough people feel as you do ryanair will suffer and will be forced to change to stay in business.

if enough people don't feel as you do, then you're pretty much screwed but that's life and a large government monopoly would only have the effect of screwing everybody over equally.. might be fair, but it's hardly right.

Zombrex

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ryanair has identified a simple fact. People view air travel largely as a bus service.

No, some people view air travel as a bus service.

Or to put it another way, enough people view air travel as a bus service to allow Ryanair to run a profitable business providing that service to them.

Those who do care are at a bit of a short end of the stick.

Your idea that they can simply go to the other airline that does provide a better service is ridiculous. The other airlines are a lot more expensive and are all going out of business or converting to low cost airlines.

That is the fundamental point you are missing. The Public service is mandated with providing a level of service and functionality irrespective of profit.

It is unprofitable for Bus Eireann to run a lot of it's service. If BE was a private company they simply wouldn't run them. Most people don't want them, there is no money in them. The 5 people who live in a obscure town in Leitrium couldn't just simply go to the other bus service that does provide the service is the current one does.

BE run them anyway because profit is not the motivating factor.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Nowhere near as high as the mobile carrier industry, never mind the regulatory issues. I might point out that what seems like a high barrier to you is not the case for most businesspeople.

High barrier to entry is relative. It wouldn't be a high barrier for a multinational to open a competing corner shop, but then they wouldn't be bother doing that either.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Competition only has an effect where it matters to customers.

That isn't true.

Often competition has no effect even when it does matter to customers, again because competition is a finite process.

Why are everyone not going to the low fares airline that has cheap flights and free cans of coke. They aren't doing that because such an airline doesn't exist. It is very difficult to provide such a service.

You are making the flaw of looking at a company like Ryanair and thinking because they are successful they must be providing what customers want. That is retroactively validating your own assertion.

In reality Ryanair is not providing a service customers want. They are providing a service that most customers are prepared to put up with because they have little choice if they want to save money on their flight. Ryanair receives more complains than any other airline that flies out of Ireland. The "choice" is between putting up with it or paying more for a better airline. But the better airlines are getting more limited as more and more airlines convert to the Ryanair model.

This is why you get much lower prices from Ryanair (which I don't see you crying about) but no improvements in customer service, nobody gives a rats ass about it. Its not a competitive factor.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

But if they don't, someone else will, and then they will have no profits at all.

But that is the point.

Most of the time someone else won't, because if it expensive for the main players in the industry who won't do it, it is even harder and more expensive for companies entering the industry.

Again look at Smart Telecom.

The established immobile companies in an industry have the safety blanket that they are already established, they have already spent the money to secure their bed rock in the industry, and any upstart claiming to offer a better product or service, has to spend that amount of money before they even get around to spending the money require to provide the extra that might attract customers over to them.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Multinationals operate in a ferociously competitive market no matter where they operate, and this seperates them from the public sector in this country by light years.

Nonsense, hardly any multinationals work in a "ferociously competitive" markets

Zombrex

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

you've no control over this as an individual, but as a consumer among other consumers you can vote with your feet and if enough people feel as you do ryanair will suffer and will be forced to change to stay in business.

Which is the flaw in the faith in private sector companies to provide services as a public company would.

The only thing that matters to a private company is the money they make. They idea that we can influence this to make them provide services they otherwise wouldn't by refusing to give them our custom is a myth.

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

if enough people don't feel as you do, then you're pretty much screwed but that's life and a large government monopoly would only have the effect of screwing everybody over equally.. might be fair, but it's hardly right.

No, a large government monopoly can (and do) provide services to people where it is unprofitable to do so.

As I said in the post above, the 5 people in the village in the middle of no where who need a bus service don't need to convince thousands of people to stop using their private bus service.

thebman

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is the flaw in the faith in private sector companies to provide services as a public company would.

The only thing that matters to a private company is the money they make. They idea that we can influence this to make them provide services they otherwise wouldn't by refusing to give them our custom is a myth.



No, a large government monopoly can (and do) provide services to people where it is unprofitable to do so.

As I said in the post above, the 5 people in the village in the middle of no where who need a bus service don't need to convince thousands of people to stop using their private bus service.

Are you serious? Nobody is saying that everything should be privatised. Come back to reality. Some services can be privatised. Obviously some routes would be unviable but there is no reason why you couldn't have a privatised bus service with subsidies for these routes to make them profitable or make them break even and require operators to run buses on some of these routes.

I wouldn't be in favour of it though and I imagine most people wouldn't be which is why Bus Eireann isn't a private company. There are private operators and many of them offer better service on the profitable routes.

For instance, I got a bus home from college from Maynooth. The Bus Eireann bus was late frequently, cost 3 Euro more return and if the bus was full they just left you there with no way to inform people that they were just leaving them there so you didn't know if it was late or canceled.

Compare that to the private operator who was at most 15 minutes late, 3 euro cheaper and if the bus was full coming out of Dublin they sent a mini bus to collect whoever was left in Maynooth. Much better service and I don't think they were making a profit on sending on the other mini bus as they didn't charge for it, it was just a service they did to keep people happy and using their service.

Hotblack Desiato

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The public sector has been receiving pay rises far in excess of inflation for the better part of a decade now.

That is complete nonsense.

SimpleSam06

ninja900 wrote: »

That is complete nonsense.

Its not only been receiving pay increases far in excess of inflation, its been getting them far in excess of the private sector.

Year Inflation (%)
1998 2.1
1999 1.6
2000 5.6
2001 4.9
2002 4.7
2003 3.5
2004 2.2
2005 2.5
2006 4.1

Irish Public Service 2001-2006: Salaries up 59%; Payroll up 18% - 38,000 workers and Pensions up 81.3%
By Finfacts Team
Jun 29, 2006, 08:27

Irish public service salaries have risen by 59% in the past five years and the payroll has expanded by 38,000 extra staff. The increase in the average industrial wage for a male worker in the period 2001-2005, was 19%.

The Exchequer’s annual wages and pensions bill increased sharply from €10.2 billion in 2001 to €16.2bn last year, with what has been termed "benchmarking" accounting for up to €1.32bn of the rise.

The number of public servants grew by 38,760, or 18%, since 2001 to 257,013 last January.

The education sector saw the biggest increase with pay costs rising by 65%. Health sector pay surged by 63% in the period, civil service salaries rose 48% and in the security sector they rose by 34.8%. The average weekly earnings for non-health service public sector workers stood at €848 last September, according to the CSO.

This was above the €754 for the banking and insurance sector and €579 for industrial workers.

Public sector pay rose by 8% in 2005 and pensions now account for 10% of the total pay bill, up from 8.6% in 2001. The pensions bill has increased from €876m in 2001 to €1,588m in 2006 representing an 81.3% increase over the period. The increase in the health sector has been 104%. Pensioners also received the special benchmarking increase of an average of 9%.

The core finding was that on average, public servants earned 13 per cent more than their private sector counterparts on a like-for-like basis in 2001. The researchers also discovered that the size of this margin (the public sector premium) in 2001 was not significantly different from what it had been in 1994, suggesting that pay increases in the public sector had kept pace with the private sector throughout the Celtic Tiger period.

Another discovery was that the margin by which public service workers outearned their private sector counterparts tended to be significantly larger at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top.

A particularly striking finding was that the estimate of the public sector premium for Ireland was more than twice as large as the available estimates for other countries.

Last November, Davy Stockbrokers said that Irish public sector pay is on average around 120 percent of private sector earnings, having risen from 113 percent in the past five years, according to Davy Stockbrokers.

In a weekly market comment, Davy said that figures from the CSO (Central Statistics Office) indicated that average earnings in the public sector are now more than €43,000 a year. This compares with €33,500 in the private sector (industrial, construction, distribution and other sectors).

"Moreover, these crude comparisons take no account of the superior pension entitlements available to the public sector," Chief Economist Robbie Kelleher said.

You want to get your own house in order before you start handing out words like "nonsense", baby. The back of the unions will be broken one way or the other, it would be better for them to go along with reforms and lessen the overall damge to the country.

SimpleSam06

Wicknight wrote: »

Those who do care are at a bit of a short end of the stick.

They can always pay a premium for business class, if it matters that much to them.

Wicknight wrote: »

Your idea that they can simply go to the other airline that does provide a better service is ridiculous.

I weep.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the fundamental point you are missing. The Public service is mandated with providing a level of service and functionality irrespective of profit.

Thats not the point at all, of this discussion or this thread. The point is that the public sector is bloated and inefficient, with dug-in ticks leeching from the public coffers on all sides. Any private sector group that tried to do it to that level would be eaten wholesale and in short order.

You seem to live in a magical, mystical filled with angry, angry consumers and corporate fatcats masquerading as efficient companies, winking and nudging their way through a three day week before lolling their way to the strip club to snort coke off the arses of hookers.

Wicknight wrote: »

High barrier to entry is relative. It wouldn't be a high barrier for a multinational to open a competing corner shop, but then they wouldn't be bother doing that either.

Ah Jesus H., you have no clue what you are talking about. Even if you ignore spectrum ownership concerns, you run into peering arrangements and prior contracts with tower leasing companies, assuming your competitors don't just own the damn things outright. The network peering issue stops most competition dead in its tracks right there, no matter how much money you throw at it, all the other companies need to do is say "no".

Wicknight wrote: »

In reality Ryanair is not providing a service customers want.

And that, right there, is your last contribution to the subject, as far as I'm concerned.

Hotblack Desiato

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Its not only been receiving pay increases far in excess of inflation, its been getting them far in excess of the private sector.

This is just the usual nonsense, the bias is obvious. The public sector pay bill went up 59% in that period, but the number of public servants increased by 18% during that time according to the article.

The age-old Indo tactics of saying "Public Servants Get X% Rise" when it's the overall pay bill that's going up by that amount, not individual salaries; or saying the "average" (highly skewed by a fairly small number of extremely high earners) public sector salary is Y and then comparing it with the average industrial wage, which is not remotely comparable to the job description or level of qualifications of the average public servant

If you have a problem with the increase in public sector numbers then by all means start a thread about that, but remember it is a political decision, and brought about in large part because we have a rapidly expanding population and the public is clamouring for more services.

You want to get your own house in order before you start handing out words like "nonsense", baby.

Baby? and my house is in order thanks, but if you want to do a bit of hoovering every now and again it would be appreciated (in other words, wtf are you going on about.)

The back of the unions will be broken one way or the other, it would be better for them to go along with reforms and lessen the overall damge to the country.

So you want to 'break their back' even though this will cause damage to the country? Do you really think 'Do as I say - or else' is a credible policy for industrial relations?

Zombrex

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

They can always pay a premium for business class, if it matters that much to them.

Or you know, they could always buy their own private jet, or heck start their own airline :rolleyes:

Your response seems to be that competition in the private sector increases the quality of services and products for the customer while reducing the cost to the customer and improving efficiency in the company .... except for the countless examples when it doesn't but sure we won't worry about those.

Heaven forbid the real world gets in the way of the Capitalism 101 text book :rolleyes:

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The point is that the public sector is bloated and inefficient

No, if you had been following, the point is that so is the private sector except that there is very little you can do about it in the private sector. The idea that you can simply go to another company that does it better is fairytale land.

The public sector still has to provide you a service, even if they are bloated and inefficient, where as the private sector doesn't unless it is profitable to them to do so.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Any private sector group that tried to do it to that level would be eaten wholesale and in short order.

Except for the countless examples otherwise ... but sure lets not worry about them :rolleyes:

You are also completely ignoring the fact that if a private company that is providing a public service, like trains or buses or education, go bust due to inability to make profit, for no matter what reason, the public loses the service!

This was spectacularly demonstrated in the USA where some states have rolled out privately run, for profit, schools (much more efficient!) that then went bust leaving the students with no school to go to.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You seem to live in a magical, mystical filled with angry, angry consumers and corporate fatcats masquerading as efficient companies, winking and nudging their way through a three day week before lolling their way to the strip club to snort coke off the arses of hookers.

That would be the real world Sam, you should try visiting once and a while.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ah Jesus H., you have no clue what you are talking about. Even if you ignore spectrum ownership concerns, you run into peering arrangements and prior contracts with tower leasing companies, assuming your competitors don't just own the damn things outright. The network peering issue stops most competition dead in its tracks right there, no matter how much money you throw at it, all the other companies need to do is say "no".

Wow, welcome to 3 pages ago.

So you accept (now) that high cost of entry into most sectors is a major flaw in the idea of competitiveness as a system of improving services and products to the public?

Or are you thinking of some wonderful sector where there is very low cost of entry? Do you think the mobile phone industry is some quirk in the otherwise perfect system of market competitive forces improving the lives of everyone?

Cause you know I can list other industries ...

Hotblack Desiato

Another thing about the public pay bill I forgot about.

It includes pensions, which are basically unfunded i.e. paid for out of current expenditure, in practice lumped in with the payroll of serving staff. (The pension reserve fund does not kick in for some years yet but will eventually offset some pensions costs.)

People are living longer and this includes public service retirees. So the pensions bill goes up and this means "pay" goes up.

Perhaps we can organise a cull. In the national interest of course.

SimpleSam06

ninja900 wrote: »

This is just the usual nonsense, the bias is obvious. The public sector pay bill went up 59% in that period, but the number of public servants increased by 18% during that time according to the article.

Actually, the article is very specific about the percentage growth in individual salaries, and in precise pay. The number of new workers in the public sector does not factor into that. Its all clearly written, and you have not addressed this.

ninja900 wrote: »

or saying the "average" (highly skewed by a fairly small number of extremely high earners) public sector salary is Y and then comparing it with the average industrial wage, which is not remotely comparable to the job description or level of qualifications of the average public servant

No, the article covers that as well, specifically reporting findings that "Another discovery was that the margin by which public service workers outearned their private sector counterparts tended to be significantly larger at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top."

ninja900 wrote: »

If you have a problem with the increase in public sector numbers

I certainly do, and the amount of money they are paid.

ninja900 wrote: »

then by all means start a thread about that, but remember it is a political decision, and brought about in large part because we have a rapidly expanding population and the public is clamouring for more services.

And once again from the article: "A particularly striking finding was that the estimate of the public sector premium for Ireland was more than twice as large as the available estimates for other countries."

So did our population double while I wasn't looking?

ninja900 wrote: »

Baby?

Eh if its good enough for Kojak, its good enough for me.

ninja900 wrote: »

So you want to 'break their back' even though this will cause damage to the country?

The only damage caused will be caused by the overpaid and bloated public sector thrashing about trying to sustain an unrealistic and unsustainable rate of pay. Twisting and turning in an attempt to hide the fact that most of the record tax returns from the boom years went into the public sector does not work, and one way or the other, this millstone is going to be removed from around the neck of the nation.

ninja900 wrote: »

Another thing about the public pay bill I forgot about.

It includes pensions, which are basically unfunded i.e. paid for out of current expenditure, in practice lumped in with the payroll of serving staff.

Bzzt. ""Moreover, these crude comparisons take no account of the superior pension entitlements available to the public sector," Chief Economist Robbie Kelleher said."

You should really try reading these things once in a while, you'll save yourself a lot of public humiliation.

Hotblack Desiato

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Actually, the article is very specific about the percentage growth in individual salaries, and in precise pay. The number of new workers in the public sector does not factor into that. Its all clearly written, and you have not addressed this.

You are completely wrong, on the basis of the article you yourself quoted, to trumpet your 59% as you did.

Finfacts article wrote:

The Exchequer’s annual wages and pensions bill increased sharply from €10.2 billion in 2001 to €16.2bn last year

Notice it says "Wages and pensions bill", i.e. the total paid out which bears no relation whatsoever to individual salaries.
The 59% increase referred to is 6bn increase on 10.2bn (58.8%) and again refers to the overall wages and pensions bill, not individual earnings.

No, the article covers that as well, specifically reporting findings that "Another discovery was that the margin by which public service workers outearned their private sector counterparts tended to be significantly larger at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top."

These claims surface now and again and make great play in the media but I've never seen one that stands up to scrutiny.
The target salary in the first benchmarking report was for public service pay to be 75% of that of comparable private sector jobs, after the benchmarking award. Nobody I know working in the public sector earns more than they could in the private sector. My wife (private sector) earns approx 40% more than the equivalent civil service salary (EO) with less responsibility(many EOs manage staff, she doesn't have to) and with better holidays, a bonus, mortgage subsidy, health insurance, same hours, flexitime...

I certainly do, and the amount of money they are paid.

Fine, it's not relevant to this thread so please start another one about public sector staff numbers.

And once again from the article: "A particularly striking finding was that the estimate of the public sector premium for Ireland was more than twice as large as the available estimates for other countries."

Another quote: "As the CSO data does not permit this kind of analysis, the dataset that they had to use is one based on a large-scale survey conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and used for much of its research into poverty and inequality."

So the data from Ireland is based on a survey rather than CSO statistics. What survey was this, who carried it out, what was its methodology and is it demonstrably free of bias? (and most importantly, is it directly comparable to the data from other countries with which it is being compared?)

and one way or the other, this millstone is going to be removed from around the neck of the nation.

This is nonsense and posturing. It's the same as the poster the other week who wanted the army to take over all public services. (Maybe that was you?!) but the army are paid from the public purse... so we turn into a banana republic with no change except exchanging suits for fatigues

Bzzt. ""Moreover, these crude comparisons take no account of the superior pension entitlements available to the public sector," Chief Economist Robbie Kelleher said."

Superior compared to whom? The maximum pension available in the public sector is 50%, in the financial services sector for instance the norm in final salary schemes is 66%.
Much of the private sector is indeed in a pensions race to the bottom, you obviously feel the public sector should follow suit I take it? But impoverishing pensioners no matter what sector they worked in is not going to benefit the economy (they will cancel private health insurance, have no discretionary spending on taxed goods, and rely more on state benefits, for starters)

You should really try reading these things once in a while, you'll save yourself a lot of public humiliation.

You've made selective quotes from an article which in itself has an obvious slant. As you might say yourself, bzzzzt.