Civil Service Pay Analysis

counterpoint · 13-01-2009 8:32pm #1

A great deal has been written about public service pay. I feel it is important to provide detailed information that will underpin any subsequent comments.

The attached analysis - see below - of the pay of Irish civil servants entitled “Analysis of Irish Civil Service General Grade Increases from 2004 to 2008 Including Annual Increments and Pay Agreement Increases - For Civil Servants Who Pay Lower Rate of PRSI and No Pension Contribution” shows the effective pay increases obtained by civil servants.

A worked example: In 1 Jan 2004 a person at the first salary scale point of the Assistant Principal grade would have received €52,919. If that person received no annual increments, their salary would have increased as follows:

1 Jan 2004 €52,919
1 Jul 2004 €53,977
1 Dec 2004 €55,057
1 Jun 2005 €57,630
1 Dec 2005 €58,494
1 Jun 2006 €59,956
1 Dec 2006 €61,755
1 Jun 2007 €62,990
1 Mar 2008 €64,565
1 Sep 2008 €66,179

This represents increases due to pay agreements and benchmarking. In this example, this represents a 25% increase over the four years.

get.php?file=5b981104

Some grades have long pay scales, that is, civil servants at those grades receive annual increments for up to 17 years before reaching a maximum. Others have shorter pay scales.

The analysis applies to the rates of pay for civil servants who pay a very low rate of PRSI - around 1.5% - and no pension contribution unlike the rest of the real world. Civil servants who pay PRSI get higher salaries to compensate them.

This shows the pay rates for various civil services grades over the last four years.

The dirty secret of civil service pay structures is annual increments. Even in the event of pay pauses, most civil servants (except those who have languished at the same grade for a considerable period of time) receive an annual pay increase called an increment. They also get pay increases on top of this.

So, in the case of the Assistant Principal grade, this experienced a total increase over the four years from 2004 to 2008 of 44% which equates to an average annual increase of 9.5%. Note that this annual increase value is cumulative. So year 1 = 100%, year 1 = 100% x (1+ 9.5%), year 2 = 100% x (1+ 9.5%) x (1+ 9.5%), year 3 = 100% x (1+ 9.5%) x (1+ 9.5%) x (1+ 8.16%) and so on. This is known as CAGR (Cumulative Annual Growth Rate).

This person would get around 35 days holidays a year and two extra days calls privilege days as well as 11 Bank Holidays. That is 48 days holidays a year. They also probably work flexitime and so every hour they work past 6.95 hours per day is added to extra days off up to a limit of 13 per year. So the maximum number of days off a year is 61.

Now, if this person retires, their pension is paid at the highest rate of their grade when they retired. It is also index linked. So this Assistant Principal’s pension would be based on a salary of €82,520. They would get 1/40th of this for each year of service. For 40 years service, the pension would therefore be €41,260. They would also get a lump sum of 3/80ths of this for every year of service or €123,780.

Note that the pension is not fixed and increases annually. So if this person retired in Jan 2004, their pension would have been €32,992.50. It would have increased over the four years to €41,260. Not bad for doing nothing.

In the case of a person who was appointed to the Assistant Secretary grade in 2004, he or she got a 57% over the four years or 12.01% very year. Because this grade only has four pay scales in the grade, the increase lessens for those appointed to the grade before 2004. The worst case is a person who was Assistant Secretary for 10 or more years in 2004 and remained at this grade for another four years. This person got a 37% over four years or 8.28% every year.

An so on for all other grades. The maximum increase experienced by a grade over this interval is an immensely unjustifiable 72% or 14.47% every year for four years.

Does this represent value for money? This is significantly more than the rate of inflation in the same interval.

These people have been allowed to award themselves substantial increases that are in no way linked to improvements in performance and productivity or the service they are supposed to provide.

So, unless you a complete muppet that cannot get a promotion, the average effective annual pay increase achieved by civil servants is of the order of 10%. Even for those that are muppets the annual effective increases is of the order of 8%. An eminent group called the Civil Service Performance Verification Group has determined these increases are deserved.

The objective of benchmarking is to find examples of equivalent roles (responsibility, package, security) and to award comparable salaries. Did employees of other industries receive a consistent 10% annual increase over the last four years while working in roles where they received longer holidays, pay very low PRSI, no pension, work an average of 6.95 hours per day (139 hours per 4 weeks), are unsackable and totally immune to any economic problems?

Apparently all these advantages have no value according to those who invented the Irish version of benchmarking while their real value represents at least an extra 40% on top of the base salary.

For example, over the interval 1990 to 2007:

Total Population Increase 23.77%
Number of Public Servants Increase 35.03%
Average Public Servant Weekly Salary Increase 134.90%
Public Service Salary Bill Increase 217.20%
Public Service Cost Per Person Increase 156.29%
Consumer Price Index Increase 66.34%

From 2004 to 2007 the size of the public service increased from 344,000 to 368,000. This was when benchmarking was supposed to be making them more efficient and yet their numbers increased.

In summary:

Unsackable
Consistently high salary increases
Short working hours
Effective 4 day week
High index linked pension with lump sum

And all this apparently has no value.

We are not asking them to take a salary cut. We are just asking them to return of the unjustified increase they received over the last few years.

http://paddycounterpoint.blogspot.com/

NewDubliner · 13-01-2009 8:56pm

counterpoint wrote: »

A great deal has been written about public service pay. I feel it is important to provide detailed information that will underpin any subsequent comments.

You've gone to a lot of trouble to research those figures, although AFAIK it's not possible to join the CS at such a senior level and you've selected the PRSI rate that best suits your argument.

Did you mention the overtime rate for that grade?

Where do you get the 4-day week?

Can you provide the same figures for the Clerical Officer grade? There are far more of them and the work is less qualified, so it could be easier to make a comparison.

Godge · 13-01-2009 11:24pm

Analysis looks good at a superficial level but a lot of what has been said in recent times looks good at a superficial level.

Assistant Principals are in the top ten per cent of civil servants in terms of salary and possibly in the top five or seven per cent - I haven't seen the most recent figures.

If you are to compare the public sector and the private sector, you are not comparing like with like. The civil service is 100% employees. The private sector consists of employees, self-employed professionals, company directors, single tradesmen, sub-contractor, other self-employed etc. There is no black market in the public sector - what is published is what the employees receive. Those are the reasons why you see a public sector premium in most OECD countries. To accurately compare the public sector and private sector, you would need to compare the earning of all of the above - the CSO statistics which are the most commonly used, only cover employees.

If you were to look at the top 10% of earners in the private sector in 2004, I am certain that you would have found them earning much more than €50,000.

The civil servants in the example given by counterpoint do pay pension contributions - it may only be 1.5% towards the spouses and childrens scheme but it is a contribution.

Increments are not automatically awarded in the civil service, there is a process, however flawed, that must be followed. However, in the education and health sectors, increments are automatically paid to teachers, lecturers and nurses.

Annual leave is 30 days (rather than 35), rising to 31 after five years service. I think there are 12 public holidays - but everyone gets them since the OWT Act 1998. Some are on flexitime but you would have to check with individual Departments.

As for salary cuts, nobody is suggesting that civil servants shouldn't share the burden of restoring the economy. Yet, when you read the latest issue of IRN, you learn that some companies - including Diageo, Axa Insurance, Proctor and Gamble, Analog Devices - are paying the first 3.5% of the new pay agreement.

counterpoint · 14-01-2009 9:04am

NewDubliner

Q: Did you mention the overtime rate for that grade?

A: Overtime is payable up to Higher Executive Officer grades.

Q: Where do you get the 4-day week?

A: Holidays (30+) + public holidays (c 11) + 2 priviledge days + days on flexitime > 50 days holidays a year = average 4 day week

Q: Can you provide the same figures for the Clerical Officer grade? There are far more of them and the work is less qualified, so it could be easier to make a comparison.

There is a PDF attached to the posting that contains this information.

Clerical Officer Standard Scale1 Jan 2004€18,736€19,610€20,485€21,361€22,234€23,110€23,984€24,860€25,732€26,607€27,476€28,831€28,831€28,831€29,895€29,895€30,3841 Jul 2004€19,111€20,002€20,895€21,789€22,679€23,572€24,464€25,357€26,247€27,139€28,025€29,408€29,408€29,408€30,493€30,493€30,9921 Dec 2004€19,493€20,402€21,313€22,225€23,132€24,044€24,953€25,865€26,771€27,681€28,586€29,996€29,996€29,996€31,103€31,103€31,6121 Jun 2005€20,181€21,121€22,065€23,008€23,949€24,892€25,834€26,776€27,716€28,658€29,594€31,053€31,053€31,053€32,200€32,200€32,7281 Dec 2005€20,483€21,438€22,396€23,353€24,308€25,266€26,221€27,178€28,132€29,088€30,038€31,519€31,519€31,519€32,683€32,683€33,2191 Jun 2006€20,995€21,974€22,956€23,937€24,916€25,897€26,877€27,857€28,836€29,816€30,789€32,307€32,307€32,307€33,501€33,501€34,0501 Dec 20061 Jun 2007€22,058€23,086€24,117€25,148€26,177€27,208€28,237€29,267€30,295€31,324€32,347€33,942€33,942€33,942€35,196€35,196€35,7731 Mar 2008€22,609€23,663€24,720€25,777€26,831€27,888€28,943€29,999€31,052€32,107€33,156€34,790€34,790€34,790€36,076€36,076€36,6671 Sep 2008€23,174€24,255€25,338€26,421€27,503€28,585€29,666€30,749€31,828€32,910€33,985€35,660€35,660€35,660€36,977€36,977€37,584

Year of Entry to GradeTotal Increase Over 4 YearsAverage Annual Increase147%10.07%246%9.88%345%9.70%444%9.53%543%9.38%642%9.24%742%9.10%843%9.44%939%8.50%1034%7.60%

So a person who was appointed as a Clerical Officer Standard Scale 1 Jan 2004 at €18,736 would have their salary increased to €26,421 - a 47% increase.

Godge

Q: Analysis looks good at a superficial level but a lot of what has been said in recent times looks good at a superficial level.

A: I believe it is a detailed analysis that identifies all the information and issues and shows the very substantial increases (three times inflation in the last 4 years) that the public service got even when the public service was also increasing in size showing that they were getting paid more for supposed productivity increases while delivering less productivity.

Q: Assistant Principals are in the top ten per cent of civil servants in terms of salary and possibly in the top five or seven per cent - I haven't seen the most recent figures.

A: It was an example. Examine the attached PDF and you will see the asame or greater increases applied for all grades.

Q: If you are to compare the public sector and the private sector, you are not comparing like with like. The civil service is 100% employees. The private sector consists of employees, self-employed professionals, company directors, single tradesmen, sub-contractor, other self-employed etc. There is no black market in the public sector - what is published is what the employees receive. Those are the reasons why you see a public sector premium in most OECD countries. To accurately compare the public sector and private sector, you would need to compare the earning of all of the above - the CSO statistics which are the most commonly used, only cover employees.

A: Not the point. The analysis shows the very substantial increases (three times inflation in the last 4 years) that the public service got even when the public service was also increasing in size showing that they were getting paid more for supposed productivity increases while delivering less productivity.

Q: If you were to look at the top 10% of earners in the private sector in 2004, I am certain that you would have found them earning much more than €50,000.

A: It is the overall package and the rate of increase. While the average salary in the private sector is greater than that in the public sector, the median salary in the public sector is greater than than in the private sector.
All grades experienced 40%+ increase over the last 4 years.

Q: The civil servants in the example given by counterpoint do pay pension contributions - it may only be 1.5% towards the spouses and childrens scheme but it is a contribution.

Q: Increments are not automatically awarded in the civil service, there is a process, however flawed, that must be followed. However, in the education and health sectors, increments are automatically paid to teachers, lecturers and nurses.

A: Increments are very rarely withheld and only in circumstances that would lead to dismissal in the private sector. The rate of increments being withheld is less than 1% so it is effectively automatic and guaranteed. Even without increments the average increase isw 25%.

Q: Annual leave is 30 days (rather than 35), rising to 31 after five years service. I think there are 12 public holidays - but everyone gets them since the OWT Act 1998. Some are on flexitime but you would have to check with individual Departments.

A: In 2009, there are 11 public holidays:

New Year’s Day 1st January
St Patrick’s Day 17th March
Easter Monday 13th April
May Day Bank Holiday 4th May
Public Holiday 1st June
Public Holiday 3rd August
Public Holiday 26th October
Christmas Day 25th December
Stephen’s Day 26th December
Bank Holiday 28th December
Bank Holiday 29th December

Good Friday 10th April is not a public holiday. Many private sector organisations insist this is taken from a person's annual leave allocation. Not so in the public sector. Also, civil servants get 2 extra priviledge days.

Q: As for salary cuts, nobody is suggesting that civil servants shouldn't share the burden of restoring the economy. Yet, when you read the latest issue of IRN, you learn that some companies - including Diageo, Axa Insurance, Proctor and Gamble, Analog Devices - are paying the first 3.5% of the new pay agreement.

A: No industry employing 360,000 people received a consistent, continual above inflation increases of 40%+ over the last 4 years. across all grades where the employees are unsackable, get defined benefits index linked pensions, linked not to their final salary but to the highest salary at the grade at which they retired.
Public servants are uniquely overpaid, underworked and insulated from any concerns around job loss and pension reduction.

NewDubliner · 14-01-2009 9:36am

counterpoint wrote: »

NewDubliner

A: Overtime is payable up to Higher Executive Officer grades.

The AP is required to work unpaid overtime, why did you omit this important point?

counterpoint wrote: »

: Holidays (30+) + public holidays (c 11) + 2 priviledge days + days on flexitime > 50 days holidays a year = average 4 day week

You're distorting the facts. That's not what is generally understood by a 4 day week.

counterpoint wrote: »

There is a PDF attached to the posting that contains this information.

How do those figures compare to private sector equivalents & to what extent are the increases a 'catch-up' for being previously underpaid?

counterpoint wrote: »

the median salary in the public sector is greater than than in the private sector.

Is this because you have included low-skill jobs in the private sector?

counterpoint wrote: »

Public servants are uniquely overpaid, underworked and insulated from any concerns around job loss and pension reduction.

You have not proven that they are overpaid (no valid comparisons provided), nor underworked - no evidence at all provided.

Your very selective choice of facts and deliberate attempt to mislead people with the '4 day week' assertion means that your posting is not 'analysis', just Irish begrudgery.

Public servants have well-regulated, adequatley-paid jobs. Why is this wrong?

Ticktactoe · 14-01-2009 9:47am

NewDubliner wrote: »

The AP is required to work unpaid overtime, why did you omit this important point?

You're distorting the facts. That's not what is generally understood by a 4 day week.

How do those figures compare to private sector equivalents & to what extent are the increases a 'catch-up' for being previously underpaid?

Is this because you have included low-skill jobs in the private sector?

You have not proven that they are overpaid (no valid comparisons provided), nor underworked - no evidence at all provided.

Your very selective choice of facts and deliberate attempt to mislead people with the '4 day week' assertion means that your posting is not 'analysis', just Irish begrudgery.

Public servants have well-regulated, adequatley-paid jobs. Why is this wrong?

+1

Macha · 14-01-2009 10:40am

NewDubliner wrote: »

You have not proven that they are overpaid (no valid comparisons provided), nor underworked - no evidence at all provided.

What would you consider a valid comparison - with other countries?
Remember when Bertie and the gang were given raises last year - comparisons were made with other countries - would that do?

NewDubliner wrote: »

Public servants have well-regulated, adequatley-paid jobs. Why is this wrong?

Well...there's too many of them, and there's too much scope for laziness. I know public offices where people work their asses off. But I also know public offices where the canteen is never empty and work is simply not getting done.

K-9 · 14-01-2009 11:31am

NewDubliner wrote: »

The AP is required to work unpaid overtime, why did you omit this important point?

It would be minuscule in the overall picture.

NewDubliner wrote:

You're distorting the facts. That's not what is generally understood by a 4 day week.

True, he spinned that a bit. Still extremely generous Holiday pay entitlements. Don't think he mentioned sick pay either.

NewDubliner wrote:

How do those figures compare to private sector equivalents & to what extent are the increases a 'catch-up' for being previously underpaid?

This report would be worth a read:
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20081218113613/WP270.pdf

NewDubliner wrote:

Public servants have well-regulated, adequatley-paid jobs. Why is this wrong?

The HSE would be an example of this well regulated, well paid jobs?

taconnol wrote: »

-
Well...there's too many of them, and there's too much scope for laziness. I know public offices where people work their asses off. But I also know public offices where the canteen is never empty and work is simply not getting done.

Do you not know you we are just slating the few Public Servants that post on Boards.ie, we don't want reform!

The_Conductor · 14-01-2009 12:47pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

It would be minuscule in the overall picture.

All grades from EO upwards (and occasionally CO/SO) work unpaid overtime. A small amount of time-in-lieu may be granted (to a maximum of 10.5 hours in a 4 week period), at the discretion of management, and subject to business requirements.

In some government departments unpaid overtime can account for between 35 and 40% of all hours worked.

Seanies32 wrote: »

True, he spinned that a bit. Still extremely generous Holiday pay entitlements. Don't think he mentioned sick pay either.

A graduate can expect the statutory minimum amount of paid annual leave, incremented by 1 day after 5 years of satisfactory service, and a further day after 10 years. All recent graduate recruitment is at the EO, rather than the AO grade, as its more cost effective, and applicants have proven willing to accept this lower grade.

Seanies32 wrote: »

This report would be worth a read:
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20081218113613/WP270.pdf

Its really a very interesting report- with a few unusual findings. Most of the perceived inequity in public sector pay tends to be at the lowest clerical levels- where comparative private sector jobs are paid up to 40% less. There also appears to be a big gender difference in pay- comparing like with like, but excluding bonuses or other uncertain benefits, the average male in the public sector is paid roughly 1-2% more than in the private sector, but the average female 12-15%. This highlights an equity which is applied across the board in the public sector- but not in the private sector.

Seanies32 wrote: »

The HSE would be an example of this well regulated, well paid jobs?

I'm not arguing with you- the HSE should be gutted and built from the bottom up. Non-consultant doctors should be given reasonable hours- the idea of continuously working over 120-130 hours a week is ridiculous. But the roles of nurses should be defined- the idea that only a doctor can canulate, change tubes, take bloods etc- is ridiculous. So too is the idea that the INO are propogating where they state nurses should aspire to be managers. Nurses should care for patients- or move into a different career. As for the almost 87% of the HSE who are not in the medical profession- if I had my way- I'd fire the lot of them, and sit down and define the jobs necessary for a hospital to function and then let them fight among themselves at competitive interview for any purely administrative jobs that might be going. The HSE account for just shy of 76% of the entire public sector by the way- but doctors and nurses for less than 7%)

taconnol wrote:

Remember when Bertie and the gang were given raises last year - comparisons were made with other countries - would that do?

Yes. Bertie considered himself good value, despite the fact that he was paid far more than either Tony Blair, The French PrimeMinister or George Bush- on the basis that they had residential entitlements, while he did not. The simple fact that Ireland is 10 times smaller than the UK, 17 times smaller than France and almost 50 times smaller than the US appears to have been ignored. Why are they allowed get away with this? Because they're worth it? I don't think so. The Irish economy entered recession before any other economy in Europe and our budget deficit as a % of GDP is the highest. That certainly doesn't sound like good management to me......

taconnol wrote:

Well...there's too many of them, and there's too much scope for laziness. I know public offices where people work their asses off. But I also know public offices where the canteen is never empty and work is simply not getting done.

I'd qualify this- there are too many in certain areas. If you were to propose firing half the HSE with Seanies32- I'll be on the sidelines cheering you on. The HSE is almost 67% of the entire public sector after all....... I'd also happily donate my Saturday mornings to help you install CCTV in all staff canteens and smoking shelters- and penalise anyone abusing breaks etc. Give me a yell, I'll help out.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Is this because you have included low-skill jobs in the private sector?

Seanies32’s report is actually quite interesting in this respect- and highlights what you are implying- if you compare CO and SO grades with comparable posts in the private sector- the public sector grades are paid considerably better, and a specific gender difference becomes apparent- with males earning between 5 and 9% more than their private sector counterparts but females considerably better paid at over 20% than in the private sector- but once you enter the junior management grades- while there is a differential it vanishes within 3 years (how Bertie thought this meant he was entitled to a higher salary than Tony Blair is beyond me in the extreme though).

As Churchill put it- Lies, lies and damn statistics…….

gurramok · 14-01-2009 12:55pm

Go ahead and compare with the UK for example. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=429176&in_page_id=2

The Irish public sector never had it so good, their UK equivalents can just weep.

The_Conductor · 14-01-2009 12:59pm

gurramok wrote: »

Go ahead and compare with the UK for example. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=429176&in_page_id=2

The Irish public sector never had it so good, their UK equivalents can just weep.

Doesn't tell the whole story- first of all UK public sector posts attract a weighting for working in the capital and also qualify for subsidised housing- neither of which are available to the Irish candidates. If you compare the UK scale for EO to the Irish scale- and pick a currency conversion of between 66-70 (which has been the historic norm over the past 4 years)- the scales are almost identical (with the exception of anyone working in the cities who would get additional UK allowances)- the massive discrepancy now on view is purely as a result in the collapse in the value of sterling- but it could just as likely reverse itself very quickly.

Ps- according to the comments on the articles- the rates quoted are actually inaccurate pretty much across the board anyhow.

Firetrap · 14-01-2009 1:27pm

From last Sunday's Sindo (Link)

Thousands of top bureaucrats face major cuts in pay and conditions in the wake of Brian Lenihan's warning that he needs to secure €2bn of cuts in public expenditure.

The Minister for Finance is likely to be particularly interested in the results of a series of Dail questions by Labour's Joan Burton which reveal that the pay and conditions of 4,000 top civil servants costs the exchequer up to €500m annually.

The survey reveals that:

• 756 civil servants earn more than €100,000.

• 507 civil servants earn more than €90,000 a year.

• 814 earn more than €80,000.

• 819 earn more than €70,000 a year.

• 989 earn more than €60,000 a year.

But they also reveal that large numbers of front-line civil servants are not on the 'gravy train' enjoyed by top bureaucrats -- with the vast majority earning less than €50,000 a year and many much closer to the average industrial wage.

Ticktactoe · 14-01-2009 1:50pm

Firetrap wrote: »

From last Sunday's Sindo (Link)

You could follow on with the number of civil servants earning less that 40,000 and 30,000! There are a lot!

eigrod · 14-01-2009 3:05pm

756 X 110000 = €83,160,000
507 X 95000 = €48,165,000
814 X 85000 = €69,190,000
819 X 75000 = €61,425,000
989 X 65000 = €64,285,000
3885 €326,225,000

Just did the above calculation on the Sunday Indo figures (taking the mid rate of each category, i.e. 95,000 for those > 90,000).

Even if An Bord Snip Nua wiped the entire number of Civil Servants in those grades, the savings made are hardly going to make any significant inroads into the overall budget deficit (remember a signifcant percentage of the above would have come back to the exchequer by way of Tax anyway)

Seán Fitzpatrick's loan would have covered more than a quarter of the above (where is that money by the way ?) !

Methinks Turlough O' Sullivan and his cohorts should start looking a little closer to home as to where the current difficulties arose and who to stick the knife into as regards finding a solution.

stevoman · 14-01-2009 3:12pm

Hi,

Im a clerical officer in the civil service. here's the increment list. Its officiial and up to date and can be obtained anywhere. it goes as follows. 1-14 is the years of service and the pay for each year in the service. so for example year 1 - annual gross is €24397 and weekly gross is €467.55

1 0 24397 467.55
2 0 25532 489.3
3 0 26672 511.16
4 0 27811 532.98
5 0 28949 554.8
6 0 30089 576.64
7 0 31227 598.45
8 0 32365 620.26
9 0 33505 642.11
10 0 34643 663.91
11 0 35774 685.58
12 0 37536 719.36
13 0 38922 745.92
14 0 39558 758.1

I am on point 7 of the scale. thats a gross of €598 and and honest €470 in my hand every week. not bad but hardly anything to brag about.

I dont think a 10-20% pay cut would be very fair on lower paid civil servants. myself, and most other civil servants have mortgages and children to worry about aswell.

What kind of gets to me is the fact that i have been listening to friends in the private sector for the last few years brag about how much more they make than me and how my wages are not good. But on the other hand i took it in stride as i chose this career for stability in my job and good promotional prospects, so i looked to the future so to speak. I havnt heard a peep of complaint from the private sector until recently that times are bad, and lots of people now are expecting public servants to take the pay cuts. i also agree that some public servants are making very large sums of money, but is it fair to tackle all public servants includiing lower paid ones across the board? personally i dont think so.

Ticktactoe · 14-01-2009 3:25pm

stevoman wrote: »

Hi,

I am on point 7 of the scale. thats a gross of €598 and and honest €470 in my hand every week. not bad but hardly anything to brag about.

I dont think a 10-20% pay cut would be very fair on lower paid civil servants. myself, and most other civil servants have mortgages and children to worry about aswell.

What kind of gets to me is the fact that i have been listening to friends in the private sector for the last few years brag about how much more they make than me and how my wages are not good. But on the other hand i took it in stride as i chose this career for stability in my job and good promotional prospects, so i looked to the future so to speak. I havnt heard a peep of complaint from the private sector until recently that times are bad, and lots of people now are expecting public servants to take the pay cuts. i also agree that some public servants are making very large sums of money, but is it fair to tackle all public servants includiing lower paid ones across the board? personally i dont think so.

Very good point there. Also there are a lot of clerical officers who are nowhere near the 7th point of the scale, so it would unfair to paint all civil servants with the one brush.

Firetrap · 14-01-2009 3:39pm

Ticktactoe wrote: »

You could follow on with the number of civil servants earning less that 40,000 and 30,000! There are a lot!

Well, that's all the numbers that were in the article. I think the numbers of people on the high wages distort things a bit for everyone.

stevoman · 14-01-2009 3:48pm

Firetrap wrote: »

Well, that's all the numbers that were in the article. I think the numbers of people on the high wages distort things a bit for everyone.

Agreed. The OP has used that article like many other as an attack o the public service. Principle Officer grade is used as the example even though is it the highest grade within the civil serice after the ministers assisent secratery of department.

The OP also takes about how you have to be a muppet not to get promoted, 36 days holidays etc. But lets be realistic here. Clerical officers get 20 days holidays, executive officers get 22 and higer executive officer ger 24.

let me break it down in promotional sense. you start off as a cleical officer (co). you can be at this grade all your career it is very hard to get promoted. i kid you not. next grade is executive officer (eo) responsible for up to 10 - 15 staff. next after that come higher executive officer (heo) respnsible for up to approx 5 eo's and 40 co's. next comes assistent principle officer. (ap) responible for 10 -15 heo's, 30 eo and god only know how many co's. after that is top of the chain. principle officer (PO). the grade whcih the original article was about. each department has about 10 or so of these. thet are responsible for all the staff and department issues.

So in fairness using the priciple officer as an example for civil service pay is the equivalant of using christiano ronaldo or wayne roony as example fo how much pay footballers get without taking into consideration every other footballer that exists.

ixoy · 14-01-2009 9:16pm

Ok it's interesting to see the CO pay grades there - how does bench marking and the annual inflation increase apply to them? Does it just apply to the grade someone is at (so that all COs with say 7 years get a 4% benchmarking + annual increase) or is it a further increase? And if there was a pay freeze would it prevent you getting the next payment on the scaled ladder? Or merely just freeze the salary at that point? Because if it's the former, then you and I have different concepts of what a pay freeze is.

I'm also curious as to what the standard hours are in the civil service? It's said above that you can "only" get 10.5 hours in lieu over 4 weeks, but that still amounts to a potential 18 extra days holidays a year, assuming a 7.5 hour work day. Plenty of private companies don't pay overtime either.

Also I see Stevoman lists the responsibilities of APs, HEOs etc - certainly where I work, no HEO or AP is responsible for anything like that number of people. Does it vary by department?

Oh and in case anyone's interested, I found the full list of salaries here on publicjobs.ie here - easy to find, to be fair. They don't quite match with stevoman's post though - have the salaries increased again since that publication in May?!

K-9 · 15-01-2009 3:20am

eigrod wrote: »

Just did the above calculation on the Sunday Indo figures (taking the mid rate of each category, i.e. 95,000 for those > 90,000).

Even if An Bord Snip Nua wiped the entire number of Civil Servants in those grades, the savings made are hardly going to make any significant inroads into the overall budget deficit (remember a signifcant percentage of the above would have come back to the exchequer by way of Tax anyway)

Seán Fitzpatrick's loan would have covered more than a quarter of the above (where is that money by the way ?) !

Methinks Turlough O' Sullivan and his cohorts should start looking a little closer to home as to where the current difficulties arose and who to stick the knife into as regards finding a solution.

Agreed there, the savings aren't really going to be made at the top so it will have to be made at the bottom.

I don't agree with that, but the economy does!

counterpoint · 15-01-2009 9:43am

There are way too many words here, too many tangents and not enough focussing on the core issue:

- Civil services got an average 30%-40% increase over the last four years - that is across all grades, all levels

- Civil servants are effectively unsackable - that is not benchmarking - if they want to be benchmarked against the private sector, start letting thousands go. You will never hear of 1,900 civil servants being made redundant in Limerick. Not one of the 71% increase in the unemployment numbers is a civil servant made redundant.

- Civil servants work short hours in general. A small number may work unpaid overtime but most get paid overtime or time off.

To the Clerical Office on point 7 of the scale, your annual salary is now €30,749. Four years ago when you were on point 3 it was €21,361. That is a 38% increase over 4 years.

NewDubliner · 15-01-2009 9:58am

counterpoint wrote: »

- Civil services got an average 30%-40% increase over the last four years - that is across all grades, all levels

The core issue is how their current pay compares to that of a a private sector worker with the same responsibilities.

counterpoint wrote: »

Civil servants work short hours in general.

What is the basis of this statement?

There may not have been redundancies, but posts are being eliminated, especially in Dublin.

Ticktactoe · 15-01-2009 10:04am

counterpoint wrote: »

There are way too many words here, too many tangents and not enough focussing on the core issue:

- Civil services got an average 30%-40% increase over the last four years - that is across all grades, all levels

- Civil servants are effectively unsackable - that is not benchmarking - if they want to be benchmarked against the private sector, start letting thousands go. You will never hear of 1,900 civil servants being made redundant in Limerick. Not one of the 71% increase in the unemployment numbers is a civil servant made redundant.

- Civil servants work short hours in general. A small number may work unpaid overtime but most get paid overtime or time off.

To the Clerical Office on point 7 of the scale, your annual salary is now €30,749. Four years ago when you were on point 3 it was €21,361. That is a 38% increase over 4 years.

Sounds like you should get a job there. You make it out to be a wonderful job... why dont you get a job in the service?

K-9 · 15-01-2009 10:43am

NewDubliner wrote: »

The core issue is how their current pay compares to that of a a private sector worker with the same responsibilities.

What is the basis of this statement?

There may not have been redundancies, but posts are being eliminated, especially in Dublin.

The report I linked to earlier suggests they are paid more.

Ticktactoe wrote: »

Sounds like you should get a job there. You make it out to be a wonderful job... why dont you get a job in the service?

Oh, that ould chestnut! Add to the current numbers! :cool:

The_Conductor · 15-01-2009 10:59am

Seanies32 wrote: »

The report I linked to earlier suggests they are paid more.

It actually suggests that the CO grade (the lowest grade) is paid considerably more (15-20%) but if you look at it on a gender basis even at this grade, that men tend to be paid only 1-2% more than in the private sector- while women in the private would tend to be much worse paid for doing identical tasks. I'm not sure how valid an argument this is, for suggesting its better paid across the board- when you 1.include this and 2.factor in that EO and higher are not better paid according to your report.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Oh, that ould chestnut! Add to the current numbers! :cool:

The civil service pay bill was cut by 5% last year (for the most part accounted for by abolishing overtime, slashing training budgets, not replacing anyone who left, retired, died etc)- this year its get rid of anyone on parttime contracts, and it looks like focusing on a last-in, first-out scheme thereafter. The thing is they are not putting any redundancy package in place- so its not conducive to people to volunteer to go- and indeed if there was the possibility of volunteering- but the better staff were persuaded to stay- a better service could transpire out of it all.

Something to remember-

The civil service is less than 10% of the public sector, and less than 7% of the public sector paybill (other parts of the public sector are better paid- accounting for the difference in percentages). Almost 70% of the public sector are in the HSE. The number of civil servants is for the most part between 8 and 15% lower now than it was in 1990- and we have the lowest number of civil servants per head of population in the OECD. Over a similar timeframe the numbers of public sector employees in most other sectors has risen by in some cases over 20%.

Even if you sack every single civil servant- you only reduce the public sector wage bill by 7%. People are looking in the wrong directions- its politically difficult to countenance health service cutbacks- but providing its the almost 200,000 administrators who get targetted- we could end up with a lean mean health system that actually works. I'd also cull nurses focusing on those who are not engaged in primary healthcare (which shockingly is almost 40%).

There is lots wrong with the civil service- but if you really want to balance the books, while the civil service can make a contribution- you are going to have to look elsewhere in order to generate the lions share of the savings.

K-9 · 15-01-2009 11:32am

smccarrick wrote: »

It actually suggests that the CO grade (the lowest grade) is paid considerably more (15-20%) but if you look at it on a gender basis even at this grade, that men tend to be paid only 1-2% more than in the private sector- while women in the private would tend to be much worse paid for doing identical tasks. I'm not sure how valid an argument this is, for suggesting its better paid across the board- when you 1.include this and 2.factor in that EO and higher are not better paid according to your report.

The overall Summary refers to the Public Service

Summary and Conclusions
This paper uses data from the 2003 and 2006 National Employment Surveys to assess
the impact of the pay increases under the first report of the Public Sector
Benchmarking Body, those made by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the
Public Sector, Reports No 40 and 41, as well as two national pay deals, on the public-

private sector pay gap. The study’s central aim was to track changes in the
relationship between pay in the public and private sectors following these pay setting
rounds.
Our analysis shows that the overall public sector pay premium increased from less
than 8 per cent in 2003 to almost 24 per cent in 2006, controlling for human capital
and other relevant pay determining characteristics. The earnings gap increased from 2
to 24 per cent for males and from 13 to 23 per cent for females.
Previous research suggested that, in 2003, senior public sector employees incurred a
pay penalty relative to their counterparts in the private sector, with these differences
more pronounced for males (Ernst & Young and Murphy, 2007). Our study confirmed
this pattern. However, when the analysis was replicated using the 2006 NES data, the
results indicated that the pay penalty for the most the public sector workers observed
in 2003 had been replaced in 2006 by wage premiums in the region of 11 per cent for
both males and females.

smccarrick wrote:

The civil service pay bill was cut by 5% last year (for the most part accounted for by abolishing overtime, slashing training budgets, not replacing anyone who left, retired, died etc)- this year its get rid of anyone on parttime contracts, and it looks like focusing on a last-in, first-out scheme thereafter. The thing is they are not putting any redundancy package in place- so its not conducive to people to volunteer to go- and indeed if there was the possibility of volunteering- but the better staff were persuaded to stay- a better service could transpire out of it all.

Something to remember-

The civil service is less than 10% of the public sector, and less than 7% of the public sector paybill (other parts of the public sector are better paid- accounting for the difference in percentages). Almost 70% of the public sector are in the HSE. The number of civil servants is for the most part between 8 and 15% lower now than it was in 1990- and we have the lowest number of civil servants per head of population in the OECD. Over a similar timeframe the numbers of public sector employees in most other sectors has risen by in some cases over 20%.

Even if you sack every single civil servant- you only reduce the public sector wage bill by 7%. People are looking in the wrong directions- its politically difficult to countenance health service cutbacks- but providing its the almost 200,000 administrators who get targetted- we could end up with a lean mean health system that actually works. I'd also cull nurses focusing on those who are not engaged in primary healthcare (which shockingly is almost 40%).

There is lots wrong with the civil service- but if you really want to balance the books, while the civil service can make a contribution- you are going to have to look elsewhere in order to generate the lions share of the savings.

I accept the Civil Service is a small part of the Public Service, well aware of that.

monkeytronics · 15-01-2009 12:04pm

ixoy wrote: »

Ok it's interesting to see the CO pay grades there - how does bench marking and the annual inflation increase apply to them? Does it just apply to the grade someone is at (so that all COs with say 7 years get a 4% benchmarking + annual increase) or is it a further increase? And if there was a pay freeze would it prevent you getting the next payment on the scaled ladder? Or merely just freeze the salary at that point? Because if it's the former, then you and I have different concepts of what a pay freeze is.

I'm also curious as to what the standard hours are in the civil service? It's said above that you can "only" get 10.5 hours in lieu over 4 weeks, but that still amounts to a potential 18 extra days holidays a year, assuming a 7.5 hour work day. Plenty of private companies don't pay overtime either.

Also I see Stevoman lists the responsibilities of APs, HEOs etc - certainly where I work, no HEO or AP is responsible for anything like that number of people. Does it vary by department?

Oh and in case anyone's interested, I found the full list of salaries here on publicjobs.ie here - easy to find, to be fair. They don't quite match with stevoman's post though - have the salaries increased again since that publication in May?!

Inflation increases and benchmrking have been one in the same. Uner the Social Partnership Payment agreements a % increase is administered according to a particular timescale. So for example if a 2% increase was agreed to come into play from 1 September 2008 - in advance of that partnership comittee would have to be provided with reports and analysis from all government departments of the progress on the agreed conditions of the increase - e.g. modernisation of work practices, introduction of new work policies etc... Once approved by the committe the increase was granted. the 2% applies to the salary of each public servant.

I remember back in 2006 the CPSU grade (CO & SO) were delayed in getting their increase at the time by appox 3 months because the evaluation committee felt that the necessary progress by CPSU members was not reached.

The average working day is 6 hours 57 minutes (not including lunch time) each member must take a minimum of 30 mins lunch or up to a max of 2hours each day and that is not included in the 6hrs 57mins. This may vary across departments as some staff or on fixed working time but overall the total working hours remains similiar.

The level of responsibility per grade various per Department and indeed per section of department. It would not be uncommon for HEOs in certain departments (social affairs, revenue, passport offices, Agriculture) to have responsibility for in excess of 15 staff members and the same for APs. In others HEOs may work alone with only staff above them and no support staff. It depends on the area and nature of work.

Salaries increased by 2% (i think) from the 1st September. your best bet for up-to-date salaries is checking the individual union sites - pseu.ie, cpsu.ie, etc....

Leave entitlements:
COs - statutory 20 days
EOs - statutory 20 days + 1 additional day
HEOs - statutory 20 days + 7 additional days
APs - statutory 20 days + 11 additional days (or 12 cant remember exactly)
POs - statutory 20 days + 12 additional days

Within the public sector alone (not including the nation as a whole) I think it is unfair that a pay freeze would effect increment increases for staff. There are plenty of staff with in the public sector who have reached the top of their payscale and are not due further increments. They would not suffer as a result of this while a staff member sitting beside them has to forego an increase. Essentially, you will end up having staff working together at the same grade, doing the same job and have a pay discrepancy not based on years of service but just by pure luck that their colleague had reached the top of the scale before a pay freeze was decided upon.

nhughes100 · 15-01-2009 12:40pm

counterpoint wrote: »

The dirty secret of civil service pay structures is annual increments. Even in the event of pay pauses, most civil servants (except those who have languished at the same grade for a considerable period of time) receive an annual pay increase called an increment. They also get pay increases on top of this.

LOL dirty secret, it's public knowledge and has been for years, you are in the free masons aren't you?

This person would get around 35 days holidays a year and two extra days calls privilege days as well as 11 Bank Holidays.

The extra days off are called concession days, the private sector gets these as well particularly around Christmas, anyone I know not working in retail got the exact time off at over Christmas as I did and yes they got paid for it. Now there's a little clue in Bank holidays as to what sector initiated these days off.

Note that the pension is not fixed and increases annually. So if this person retired in Jan 2004, their pension would have been €32,992.50. It would have increased over the four years to €41,260. Not bad for doing nothing

.

Doing nothing - paying a substantial slice of your salary at no choice to yourself for 40 years constitutes doing nothing. PS if you leave after 5, 10, 15,20, 25 years the pension is not worth a damn.

These people have been allowed to award themselves substantial increases that are in no way linked to improvements in performance and productivity or the service they are supposed to provide.

Awarded themselves?? Did you ever hear of ministerial sign off?

So, unless you a complete muppet that cannot get a promotion,

There's plenty of grades in the public service that have no promotion path, we can't all be managers you know.

The objective of benchmarking is to find examples of equivalent roles (responsibility, package, security) and to award comparable salaries. Did employees of other industries receive a consistent 10% annual increase over the last four years while working in roles where they received longer holidays, pay very low PRSI, no pension, work an average of 6.95 hours per day (139 hours per 4 weeks), are unsackable and totally immune to any economic problems?

I love this one, immune to any economic problems. Please tell me how any public servant is immune to inflation, oil prices, rises in fuel, house prices, mortgage interest rates. After that please tell me how I can claim all the money I've paid due to these economic problems that I'm apparantly immune to. OK if you're looking for private sector 10% plus increases over the past 4 years I suggest you look at the following, car salesmen, solicitors, estate agents(now there's a job where you got money for old rope) property developers, trades people who robbed us blind during the boom, so called account managers, professional footballers, Padraig Harrington etc etc etc.

In summary:
Unsackable

Consistently high salary increases

Short working hours

Effective 4 day week

High index linked pension with lump sum

Unsackable, any public servant can be removed by ministerial consent, get on to your TD.

Consistently high salary increases - Check out a caretakers increments and tell me they're high. Some are under 100 euro a year.

counterpoint wrote: »

- Civil servants are effectively unsackable - that is not benchmarking - if they want to be benchmarked against the private sector, start letting thousands go. You will never hear of 1,900 civil servants being made redundant in Limerick. Not one of the 71% increase in the unemployment numbers is a civil servant made redundant.

Now you're trolling, I know several public/civil servants who have been let go, not everyone in the public/civil service is permenant you know.

- Civil servants work short hours in general. A small number may work unpaid overtime but most get paid overtime or time off.

Have you ever heard of the working time act brought in by our EU friends? If you're not getting your breaks and you're working more then 48 hours in a week then your employer is breaking the law, there are exceptions to this but this applies to a lot of private sector workers too. I'm sure you'd be the first to be complaining if the government were being sued by civil servants as they were in breach of EU legislation.

Please a bit of balence. The public/civil service is far from perfect, yes some do work shorter hours like teachers but that's what they signed up for and that's what was authorised by your elected representatives.

monkeytronics · 15-01-2009 12:52pm

nhughes,

Just one thing thats not accurate in your post - Ministerial consent is not required to get rid of permanent public servants for disciplinary reasons.

Head of Personnel can do this and there is a code of conduct and disciplinary procedures in place for dealing with people not pulling their weight.

And yes I laughed at the Dirty Little Secret statement too...considering all aspects of the public sector pay is available publically for years.

PSEU.ie
CPSU.ie
GRA.cc
etc.. etc...

The fact is, when it comes to public servants. You can find out any person's salary by knowing their position (e,g. eo etc...) and the yrs service they've done. So your friend is an EO for three yrs - go to PSEU.ie EO pay, and look at point 3 of the scale - bam there's their salary. No bonuses, or company cars. You get paid 40,000 in the public service you get paid 40,000 (with a few exceptions - Gardai, firefighters etc...) end of story. Not always the case in the private sector and I would say over 95% of private sector salary structures are not transparent to the general public.

But public sector pay is such a dirty little secret.... damn!

K-9 · 15-01-2009 1:03pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

The extra days off are called concession days, the private sector gets these as well particularly around Christmas, anyone I know not working in retail got the exact time off at over Christmas as I did and yes they got paid for it. Now there's a little clue in Bank holidays as to what sector initiated these days off.

From my experience of doing wages, Christmas leave is taken out of holiday leave.

monkeytronics wrote: »

nhughes,

Just one thing thats not accurate in your post - Ministerial consent is not required to get rid of permanent public servants for disciplinary reasons.

Head of Personnel can do this and there is a code of conduct and disciplinary procedures in place for dealing with people not pulling their weight.

And yes I laughed at the Dirty Little Secret statement too...considering all aspects of the public sector pay is available publically for years.

PSEU.ie
CPSU.ie
GRA.cc
etc.. etc...

The fact is, when it comes to public servants. You can find out any person's salary by knowing their position (e,g. eo etc...) and the yrs service they've done. So your friend is an EO for three yrs - go to PSEU.ie EO pay, and look at point 3 of the scale - bam there's their salary. No bonuses, or company cars. You get paid 40,000 in the public service you get paid 40,000 (with a few exceptions - Gardai, firefighters etc...) end of story. Not always the case in the private sector and I would say over 95% of private sector salary structures are not transparent to the general public.

But public sector pay is such a dirty little secret.... damn!

Nope they aren't. It is up to the individual Company what they pay.

ixoy · 15-01-2009 2:44pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

The extra days off are called concession days, the private sector gets these as well particularly around Christmas, anyone I know not working in retail got the exact time off at over Christmas as I did and yes they got paid for it.

Never happened with anyone I know. Any leave over Christmas, aside from the public holidays, had to be taken out of your annual leave. I know of no exceptions (and yes, none of my friends work in retail).

I love this one, immune to any economic problems.

By virtue of the fact that each year pay is adjusted with inflation and jobs are far safer in a difficult economic climate than a private one. Not saying I agree with that point but I imagine that's what's being said.

OK if you're looking for private sector 10% plus increases over the past 4 years I suggest you look at the following, car salesmen, solicitors, estate agents(now there's a job where you got money for old rope) property developers, trades people who robbed us blind during the boom, so called account managers, professional footballers, Padraig Harrington etc etc etc.

That's only a small portion of the private sector, whereas alll the public sector have had massive increses over those 4 years from the reports. I do agree though that some of the private sector jobs mentioned above were charging ridiculous prices and getting unsupportable increases - no need to replicate it in the public sector though.

monkeytronics wrote: »

Within the public sector alone (not including the nation as a whole) I think it is unfair that a pay freeze would effect increment increases for staff. There are plenty of staff with in the public sector who have reached the top of their payscale and are not due further increments. They would not suffer as a result of this while a staff member sitting beside them has to forego an increase. Essentially, you will end up having staff working together at the same grade, doing the same job and have a pay discrepancy not based on years of service but just by pure luck that their colleague had reached the top of the scale before a pay freeze was decided upon.

While I see your point, I do find it difficult for civil servants to say they're on a "pay freeze" when their pay will often be increased in the next year as they move up the pay scale ladder. This is not a pay freeze as I understand it - currently many private sector places may only increase in line with inflation and nothing to do with years of service. Many are on a pay freeze that, despite working a few years, won't get anything extra at all despite being more experienced.

A pay cut across those grades would be preferable I guess, although it could result in being rising to the next level only to be on the same wage as before. It's more equitable though. We can't be fully fair in these times - we have to find the best solution possible and people will not like it.. why would they.

Can anyone tell me about overtime rates? I've heard of civil servants getting ridiculously generous overtime rates for working weekends - how do these work?

Also would it not be better to reform something like PMDS? Often in the private sector you would have your work measured against others, rather than independently. Then you'd use a form of bell curve model so that 10% or so would have to fit in "must improve", 20% "could do better", etc. You'd then award pay increases to those who met targets and nothing for those who don't. I understand PMDS is designed for this but since so very very few don't get their pay increases, it's clear that it's not strict enough and doesn't take into account slackers - by forcing some form of bell curve model, could this help weed out those who are lazy?

Civil Service Pay Analysis

Comments