Civil Service Pay Analysis

nhughes100

They didn't cut numbers officially but loads of contract staff are being let go, I know departments that have over half their staff as contracters. Anyway there's going to be plenty of people on the dole so someone's gonna have to pay for that. The public sector is one thing that could keep the economy going, it they stiffle pay and spending there that isn't going to help the private sector one iota. I know of two contracters where I work who freely admit they'd be out of business if it wasn't for the public work they pick up.

Fact of the matter is the banks caused this problem and now propaganda from the government and a few self appointed experts like Eddie Hobbs have turned it into a public V private sector war.

sakigrant

nhughes100 wrote: »

The public sector is one thing that could keep the economy going, it they stiffle pay and spending there that isn't going to help the private sector one iota.
Fact of the matter is the banks caused this problem and now propaganda from the government and a few self appointed experts like Eddie Hobbs have turned it into a public V private sector war.

I agree with you completely. I work in the public sector and I was looking at buying a car this year, there's no chance of that now, doing a lot more shopping in Lidls and Aldis....

i agree with you about the public V private. The public sector didn't cause the recession but it detracts nicely for the Gov from what's actually going on when the proles are fighting each other!

pete

BroomBurner wrote: »

Someone that is earning ~ €70,000 after 30 years in the service is hardly undeserving, is it? They probably worked their way up from CO to HEO. Do people seriously begrudge hard work and promotion?

Absolute max of the HEO scale for anyone recruited post-1995 and including long service increments / higher scale is €64,296. For pre-95 recruits it's €61,082

ixoy

BroomBurner wrote: »

That was exactly my point. If someone has worked hard and has managed to go from CO to HEO level (they would not be on 70G's if still a CO), then surely they deserve their wage? In general, those that rise to AP level are those that are good enough. The civil service isn't the same way it used to be. The current flock of APs and POs would have had to go through rigorous interview processes to get where they are now, surely? Those determing the promotions aren't stupid.

From my exposure: there's a fair few crap COs and EOs. Most HEOs I've worked with are quite competent and I've found all APs to be professional. I've less exposure to POs but they all seem to do their job well.

In other words, I will believe that a lot of promotions these days are merit based. I certainly won't believe though that all pay rises within the ranks - CO and EO in particular - are justified because there are many wasters there who really should be tested on a merit basis within their own level and not just when seeking promotion. And no PMDS, as it stands, doesn't seem nearly rigourous enough.

BroomBurner

ixoy wrote: »

From my exposure: there's a fair few crap COs and EOs. Most HEOs I've worked with are quite competent and I've found all APs to be professional. I've less exposure to POs but they all seem to do their job well.

In other words, I will believe that a lot of promotions these days are merit based. I certainly won't believe though that all pay rises within the ranks - CO and EO in particular - are justified because there are many wasters there who really should be tested on a merit basis within their own level and not just when seeking promotion. And no PMDS, as it stands, doesn't seem nearly rigourous enough.

One problem with PMDS is that it is not enforced in the entire Civil Service, let alone the Public Service. I would agree that the increment scale should be based on merit and not just because "well, I've worked for a year, I should get a payrise". The vast majority of EO's and CO's that are hard working would also agree (going out on a limb with that assumption).

/RANT ALERT\
Another problem with it is that it is based on one line manager's opinion. I know personally of one manager who got their position by pure chance (through a merger with another semi-state body) and caused other, more deserving people, to lose out on a possible promotion opportunity. This person is the most incompetent, unhelpful and useless staff member I have ever come across. However, because their manager is also of the same ilk, they continue to receive their increment.
/RANT ALERT\

This is where PMDS fails. It is a good system, but it is not based enough on work output. If I could improve PMDS, I would first ensure that every department had quantifiable targets on top of the usual bumphf of providing a good service. I would also stop any increment to those getting a 2. Anyone getting a 1 should go on automatic probation with 6 months to improve performance or they're gone.

rkevin

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.

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.





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/

complete crap
why did u not pick the average paid public servent
and i know no public servent who dose not pay in to pension
i am paying in 70 euro a week
best thing u can do is go and join the irish independent

nesf

irish_bob wrote: »

the goverment didnt try to cut numbers for two reasons , they would have faced huge resistance from unions and it would have resulted in reduced votes for local fianna fail td,s , oh and i forgot , bertie aherne made it his priority to never ever alienate one single voter demographic

Yes because after the pension levy civil servants will be falling over themselves in their eagerness to assure a fourth FF term..

P. Breathnach

BroomBurner wrote: »

This is where PMDS fails. It is a good system, but it is not based enough on work output. If I could improve PMDS, I would first ensure that every department had quantifiable targets on top of the usual bumphf of providing a good service.

It seems an attractive idea, but I don't think it is workable in all cases -- most particularly at senior levels. How can you put numbers on policy development, or firefighting problems, or writing speeches for ministers, or attending a meeting in Brussels to represent our position on some EU matter? Or a mixture of all those things?

BroomBurner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems an attractive idea, but I don't think it is workable in all cases -- most particularly at senior levels. How can you put numbers on policy development, or firefighting problems, or writing speeches for ministers, or attending a meeting in Brussels to represent our position on some EU matter? Or a mixture of all those things?

Yeah, that's the problem isn't it? In places where it's possible it should be done to a greater extent. We have quantifiable targets where we are, but they are also never enforced to any great degree. We're not even allowed to mention relevant statistics on the PMDS forms.

Also, it is unbelievable how many people over-value themselves.*

*that goes for both private AND public sector workers, btw.

BlaasForRafa

sakigrant wrote: »

I agree with you completely. I work in the public sector and I was looking at buying a car this year, there's no chance of that now, doing a lot more shopping in Lidls and Aldis....

i agree with you about the public V private. The public sector didn't cause the recession but it detracts nicely for the Gov from what's actually going on when the proles are fighting each other!

Normal workers in the private sector didn't cause the recession either but that is where most of the hurt is coming through huge job losses and pay freezes or cuts.

Unpalatable as it is the public sector workers are going to have to take a hit as well. The countries finances are in terrible shape and everyone has to do their bit.

ixoy

BroomBurner wrote: »

Yeah, that's the problem isn't it? In places where it's possible it should be done to a greater extent. We have quantifiable targets where we are, but they are also never enforced to any great degree. We're not even allowed to mention relevant statistics on the PMDS forms.

What about using a bell-curve model? It's common in the private sector: Say 30-40% would receive a 3. Then approximately 15% must receive a 2, 5% a 1, and then work out the rest for the higher levels. People are compared not just against their targets, but against each other - a true meritocracy. Obviously hard to implement to some degree, but it could be done in a brutally fair manner.
It does of course mean that you could have a section where there's 10 dedicated hard-workers where the model would need to be applied, and another where there's 10 slackers and still have the same broad outcome, but it still may be a possible way no?

Also, it is unbelievable how many people over-value themselves.*

*that goes for both private AND public sector workers, btw.

Very true! Pretty much nobody is inexpendable in the end, but everyone thinks they'll always ask the guy or gal beside them to leave first.

nhughes100

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Normal workers in the private sector didn't cause the recession either but that is where most of the hurt is coming through huge job losses and pay freezes or cuts.

Unpalatable as it is the public sector workers are going to have to take a hit as well. The countries finances are in terrible shape and everyone has to do their bit.

I love this "Everyone has to do their bit" How does losing your job help get the economy back on track? Normal workers in the private sector certainly did their bit to cause this mess, estate agents, tradesmen, builders, traders, mortgage officials and brokers. All to get their bonus. Basically most people involved in the buying and selling of houses.

mad m

Just an example of Dublin City Council workers, Housing maintenance a G.O (General operative) gets 20+1 holidays a year. I'm not totally sure of the weekly wage but it comes in or around 26-28k a year before any OT. A craft worker (plumber,carpenter etc) gets 20+1 holidays a year as well and probably earns between 40-42k basic a year without OT.

Most sections in Dublin City Council housing maintenance has cut OT out altogether or it has halved in some way or form. The increments are over ten years for a craft worker (not sure for a G.O) the increments go up in cents on their hourly rate.

If someone works over the xmas they get the days in lieu...

BlaasForRafa

nhughes100 wrote: »

I love this "Everyone has to do their bit" How does losing your job help get the economy back on track? Normal workers in the private sector certainly did their bit to cause this mess, estate agents, tradesmen, builders, traders, mortgage officials and brokers. All to get their bonus. Basically most people involved in the buying and selling of houses.

Oh yeah? I f*****g didn't, the workers in Dell, Waterford Crystal and dozens of other companies didn't. Its easy to see those in the public sector on this thread who have their practically unsackable jobs who won't give up some of their perks while unemployment rockets towards half a million.

The_Conductor

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Oh yeah? I f*****g didn't, the workers in Dell, Waterford Crystal and dozens of other companies didn't. Its easy to see those in the public sector on this thread who have their practically unsackable jobs who won't give up some of their perks while unemployment rockets towards half a million.

People are sacked in the public sector every day of the week, redundancies happen too- for example last Sundays Sunday Business Post had a small piece about proposals are for 15-20% redundancies in the Department of Agriculture and a similar amount in Teagasc.

Sackings and redundancies happen every day of the week- they just don't fit the agenda that the media have.

ixoy

smccarrick wrote: »

Sackings and redundancies happen every day of the week- they just don't fit the agenda that the media have.

Would you know though how many of those are staff that aren't on contracts? I though those non-contracted staff are far more immune, something my dad made mention of recently. That surely is a difference.

The_Conductor

ixoy wrote: »

Would you know though how many of those are staff that aren't on contracts? I though those non-contracted staff are far more immune, something my dad made mention of recently. That surely is a difference.

Its a reduction the the staff establishment in the two instances I mentioned. Contract staff do not come under the staff establishment numbers of government departments (or agencies), they are treated with by seperate sanction from the Department of Finance.

Contract staff are inherently less safe than non-contract staff- but there will always be a number of skillsets that its not possible to upskill to inhouse (some very specific areas of IT or specific scientific expertise for example). Once you have cut down those areas that can be cut- from the perspective of maintaining the business functions- its then easier to move over to the core staff.........

Diairist

since yez are lowering the tone of the conversation by using acronyms.... Did yez notice the P.O. wage scale won't suffer a pension levy? It's linked to a T.D.'s wage scale. Can't interfere with them, can we?

P.S.: dear politics people - did Beverly actually stop claiming the 41,000?

Tigger

i believe that this unease between the public and private sector is being stirred up intentionally to divert some of the angst in this country

i think that the public sector do well outa their pensions and job security
but did i apply to join : no i did not, why becaulse i didn't want that i wanted what i do. now are some people paid too much ? why yes they are but thats not the point

point is that benchmarking rewarded both those who deserved it and those who didn't

its not time to dock everybody its time to seperate the wheat from the chaff

look at the complaints about the measley 3.5% that the esb are getting the govt are talking outa the sides of thier mouth about that but still siupporting it
as the majoirty shareholders they could prevent ity but no they decide to stir it up

i'm sick of it the civil service the esb the private sector all need to be brought in line the fat needs to be trimmed and we need to become more competitive

what we don't need to do it turn into a worse nation of begrudgers that we already are

The_Conductor

Diairist wrote: »

since yez are lowering the tone of the conversation by using acronyms.... Did yez notice the P.O. wage scale won't suffer a pension levy? It's linked to a T.D.'s wage scale. Can't interfere with them, can we?

P.S.: dear politics people - did Beverly actually stop claiming the 41,000?

Its actually the other way around. 20 years the TDs salary scale had linkages to the HEO salary scale, but they decided this was insufficient for elected officials (despite the fact that at the time a HEO was in some cases a manager of ~100 staff). POs have to pay the pensions levy, in a similar manner to everyone else in the civil service.

Despite the TDs salary being linked to the PO scale- there are fewer than 8 members of the governing parties not drawing additional allowance (the mean of which is 20k for chairing an Oireachtas committee).

There is an argument that allowances are not being dealt with because there are so few people in receipt of them- but this attitude really has to change- its irrelevant whether its 200 people in receipt of an allowance- or 200,000- if its inherently indefensible- it should be done away with.......

Harolds+

The Govt and spin docs want a scapegoat and they are using the most vulnerable : public service.

I'm a civil servant and while my friends made their money we were the bystanders when the boom was booming. I met an investor last night who wants 1/2 of us sacked but these investors and savers are the ones who destroyed the economy.

The average joe and jane spent everyday and kept the econony going. It was the shareholders who bought 2+ homes and who didn't spend and hid and spent abroad and these bastards want us to bail them out.

Eddie Hobbs/Langer can go jump if he thinks we will accept and bear the brunt for the state of this economy

rkevin

i will be hit for €50 euro take home pay
because of this my lunch will be bought to work from home instead of giving €10 euro a day to eat out
if half the public servent were to do this or reduce spending by the same it would take half a billion out of the economy so well done FF again protect the rich and the banks and done worry about keeping jobs

nhughes100

rkevin wrote: »

i will be hit for €50 euro take home pay
because of this my lunch will be bought to work from home instead of giving €10 euro a day to eat out
if half the public servent were to do this or reduce spending by the same it would take half a billion out of the economy so well done FF again protect the rich and the banks and done worry about keeping jobs

Me too, I certainly don't call having 3-400 euro a month docked from your wages for a pension you might never see a perk. They have to introducea choice in the pension scheme, if you want in then fine, if not take the money and hide it under your mattress. Do the sums. 300 a month adds up to a huge amount of money after 30 or 40 years and you'll be still be able to claim the old age pension. Also you should be allowed choose how much of a contribution to the pension you want to make, if you make 50% contributions then you can get 50% of the benefits if/when you retire.

Yes there are overpaid people in the civil and public service but they all are in the ha'penny place compared with what the top bank guys are on. 3 million a year and a blank cheque in zero interest loans, don't believe the propaganda people.

Harolds+

well if they want to cut us then we we will make up for that loss by not spending that amount and I can only urge people to do that (if we lose)

They are building new gaffs near me and there is widespread objections from the community and from all political parties BAR FF who are hell bent on building these. I have no objection as people need to live but they are reducing the size of the community centre as a result and there is something wrong in that.

This is typical FF. They dont share the same mindset as us but people keep voting for them.

Of course FG are worse but you all know what to do come June 4th

The_Conductor

Harolds+ wrote: »

well if they want to cut us then we we will make up for that loss by not spending that amount and I can only urge people to do that (if we lose)

They are building new gaffs near me and there is widespread objections from the community and from all political parties BAR FF who are hell bent on building these. I have no objection as people need to live but they are reducing the size of the community centre as a result and there is something wrong in that.

This is typical FF. They dont share the same mindset as us but people keep voting for them.

Of course FG are worse but you all know what to do come June 4th

Its not that we have any option but to spend less- we have less. We've already sat down here and decided that going forward M&S, Tesco, Superquinn and all local shops are off our shopping- we are going to focus on Aldi and Lidl- and every 6 or 7 weeks pop up to Lisburn for dry goods and frozen foods to tide us over. Holidays- are off the cards, and anything that we can cut back has been cut back. Thankfully our townhouse is well insulated and doesn't cost too much to heat- but we're probably in negative equity on it, even if we could sell it (and we have to- as we've been decentralised- and I'm simply not up to driving 1,300 miles a week).

We're both really worried- we don't know how our finances are going to work out.......

Harolds+

Of course you are worried. I'm getting married in 2010 and its a struggle saving when already our mortgage and bills eat up everything.

I know this is a world crisis but you don't punish the vulnerable like the low paid in the civil/public service and now we read the BANKSTERS wont reduce their wage packets

You start from the top down in the civil/public service. I am getting 6.3% knocked off my wage packet. I have over 8yrs service and I am on less than the AIW but why is it that someone who can earn up to 300k is taxed 9.4% (just 3.1% more than me).

Attack the vulnerable and give 2 fingers to the rest with a 1.1% increase for PO's and up!

I always vote and urge people to do the same but don't vote FG

nesf

Harolds+ wrote: »

I have over 8yrs service and I am on less than the AIW but why is it that someone who can earn up to 300k is taxed 9.4% (just 3.1% more than me).

Or at a rate 50% bigger than yours, depending on whether you are trying make it sound small or not.

Harolds+

nesf wrote: »

Or at a rate 50% bigger than yours, depending on whether you are trying make it sound small or not.

I'm sure they will do fine anyway and have small to no mortgages.

Besides, alot of the senior civil servants are spinsters and bachelors with no major expenses and tend not to spend (therefore are not keeping the economy ticking) so why reward them - yes, they should be discriminated!

nesf

Harolds+ wrote: »

Besides, alot of the senior civil servants are spinsters and bachelors with no major expenses and tend not to spend (therefore are not keeping the economy ticking) so why reward them - yes, they should be discriminated!

That's a fairly crass generalisation to be honest. Even if it were true, you're not looking at the situation correctly. The only way someone can prevent economic activity is by keeping their money underneath a mattress. If it's kept in a bank, which the vast majority of people do, then it can be lent out to others who will use it and thus create economic activity and keep the economy ticking. The person themselves doesn't need to spend it necessarily.

I don't think you could characterise a 9% paycut as a reward though, no matter what way you slice it. Someone earning 300K is paying an obscene amount of tax at 41% to start with.

Harolds+

The only way someone can prevent economic activity is by keeping their money underneath a mattress. If it's kept in a bank, which the vast majority of people do, then it can be lent out to others who will use it and thus create economic activity and keep the economy ticking. The person themselves doesn't need to spend it necessarily.

Emm well if you kept it in an investment Bank (who invest mainly in foreign properties, developments, other Banks, foreign products etc) you are taken the money out of the country and into another countries pocket.

I would say a great deal of senior civil servants are doing exactly this (spreading the risk and their wealth abroad and I know 2 Senior CS who have done this) and are not contributing to this economy so therefore they should be the ones who should suffer and can afford to pay a bit extra.

I haven't heard of a civil servant paying 41% tax selling their cars or changing their holiday plans and I doubt I will see it in the future