Civil Servants on Less than 60K!!

molloyjh

mountainyman wrote: »

It is a completely unskilled stereotypically working class job. Anyone could do it, it requires less skill than a bus driver or a ditch digger. Someone has to be poorly paid and prison officers by any reasonable measure should be poorly paid.

[1] The skill required to do the jobs
[2] The intellectual ability needed to do the job
[3] The need to attract 'the right people'

[1] No skill is required to be a prison officer
[2] No intellectual ability is needed
[3] We do not have the right people as can be seen by the sleveenism of the prison service as whole, the crimnal conduct of a minority and the simple fact that only an underclass type person would become a prison officer.

Cut their wages by 70% if they don't like it sack them.

Well it's well for you that you're not working class isn't it! And well for us that your not in a position of power. Heaven firbid someone who does a job that is life threatening may actually get in some way compensated for it. You're bs talk of a 70% reduction in salary would bring them down to around 10k annually. But of course you've already done the maths haven't you and you know this, and know that this is more than enough to get by. This of course would leave them with 800 a month, which is obviously enough to support a family yeah!? :rolleyes:

yoshytoshy

thomasj wrote: »

Heres a slightly more reliable source than the herald!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0909/1220629652929.html



This was last september bear in mind that since last january there has been a recruitment freeze in the public sector, retired folk not being replaced and a pay freeze as well

Your talking about percentages ,percentages based on a workforce that doesn't exist anymore.

Of course there was a higher percentage of public servants years ago ,because no one else had a job.

molloyjh

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Your talking about percentages ,percentages based on a workforce that doesn't exist anymore.

Of course there was a higher percentage of public servants years ago ,because no one else had a job.

Employment levels outside the public sector and the number of positions available within aren't directly related really.

yoshytoshy

It's a farce ,the sooner an outside body comes in to audit the public sector the better.
Hang the unions.

thomasj

yoshytoshy wrote: »

It's a farce ,the sooner an outside body comes in to audit the public sector the better.
Hang the unions.

Typical attitude. nothing concrete

dvpower

molloyjh wrote: »

I moved into a public sector job from the private sector about 10 months ago just as easily and readily as I could move into or around the private sector. Just because the jobs don't appear on irishjobs or some such doesn't mean they aren't there or you can't apply for them. Like any organisation though the jobs are open to internal applicants and internal applicants almost always have the advantage.

In the Civil Service in particular, as far as I know, you can join as a CO, an EO or an AO (or some equivilent). When you join, you can only get in at the bottom of the payscale. If you have 10 years equivilent private sector experience, you cannot join at point 10 on the scale.

The wider public sector might be a different kettle of fish; can a PC with 10 years in the Met join the Guards half way up the scale?; can a lecturer in a private college become a teacher half way up the scale?

thomasj

dvpower wrote: »

In the Civil Service in particular, as far as I know, you can join as a CO, an EO or an AO (or some equivilent). When you join, you can only get in at the bottom of the payscale. If you have 10 years equivilent private sector experience, you cannot join at point 10 on the scale.

The wider public sector might be a different kettle of fish; can a PC with 10 years in the Met join the Guards half way up the scale?; can a lecturer in a private college become a teacher half way up the scale?

Yes based on your college qualifications you can end up on any one of those grades. Also in private sectors do they not look for staff or managers with relevant experience/qualifications?

yoshytoshy

thomasj wrote: »

Typical attitude. nothing concrete

To be honest ,if all you amount to is quotes to newspaper articles ,why are you posting on a discussion board ?

If everything was as plain cut as the papers have made out for the last ten years ,we'd be in havanna.

thomasj

yoshytoshy wrote: »

To be honest ,if all you amount to is quotes to newspaper articles ,why are you posting on a discussion board ?

If everything was as plain cut as the papers have made out for the last ten years ,we'd be in havanna.

I'm walking away from this! rant all you like!

ParkRunner

yoshytoshy wrote: »

It's a farce ,the sooner an outside body comes in to audit the public sector the better.
Hang the unions.

An Bord Snip Nua are well into their investigations. If only the banks were as transparent

yoshytoshy

thomasj wrote: »

I'm walking away from this! rant all you like!

Good ,leave the keyboard there.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

yoshytoshy wrote: »

It's a farce ,the sooner an outside body comes in to audit the public sector the better.
Hang the unions.

That just smacks of pure begrudery.
What about the inefficiencies in Private companies? What about some decent audits of Banks? What about auditing of Brewerys, Book Shops, or Sandwich Bars? What about all of us wasting company time and money on Messageboards instead of getting on with the job?:)

dvpower

jim o doom wrote: »

NO actually, not in all sectors; in a tax sector take VAT, or any other major tax - it takes a significant amount of training to get the basics of said tax (for someone who hasn't done taxation in college, which I certainly didn't) - and then a lot of on the job experience to learn all the ins and outs of ANY tax.

If a person who has a lot of experience in that tax leaves a section - that section is losing "experience" and someone must be trained to make the difference up. If there was a lot of movement, no one would fully understand what legislation was important (not to mention that legislation changes regularily). Despite the job being low paid, it isn't as simple as sitting at a screen drooling into your lap - you actually need to know and understand what you are doing.

How would a high turnaround of staff in an area like that help at all, what soever? It simply wouldn't.

Granted. This may be true for some specialist roles. This is why in the Revenue they have specialist grades. e.g. Tax Offier, Higher Tax Offier...

But if, say, a qualified accountant with 5 years experience wants to join the Revenue, shouldn't they be allowed to, as long as they can pass the barrier. HTOs in Revenue regulary leave the CS to take up good jobs in the Accounting firms. It seems to make sense that Revenue would benefit from a two way street.

Better still, a HTO leaves Revenue, spends a few years working in an accounting firm, and then moves back to Revenue (maybe as an Inspector of Taxes).

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

thomasj wrote: »

I'm walking away from this! rant all you like!

I'm right behind you. It's caught in a blind bind and nobody's for turning. I dispair for the year ahead when workers are at each others throats rather than directing their energies to getting to mess sorted.

Slán.;)

pete

Giovanna Prehistoric Crane wrote: »

What about all of us wasting company time and money on Messageboards instead of getting on with the job?:)

I'm on leave.

yoshytoshy

Giovanna Prehistoric Crane wrote: »

That just smacks of pure begrudery.
What about the inefficiencies in Private companies? What about some decent audits of Banks? What about auditing of Brewerys, Book Shops, or Sandwich Bars? What about all of us wasting company time and money on Messageboards instead of getting on with the job?:)

There are some good people that I know work in the public service ,they deserve more than the pay they get.
There are also some people I know ,who abuse there position of security with their job.

Theres nothing wrong with inspecting things properly and those who work ,get paid for it.

Jesus ,it's terrible when people try to argue a point and they can't see the bigger picture.

molloyjh

dvpower wrote: »

In the Civil Service in particular, as far as I know, you can join as a CO, an EO or an AO (or some equivilent). When you join, you can only get in at the bottom of the payscale. If you have 10 years equivilent private sector experience, you cannot join at point 10 on the scale.

The wider public sector might be a different kettle of fish; can a PC with 10 years in the Met join the Guards half way up the scale?; can a lecturer in a private college become a teacher half way up the scale?

To be honest I don't know enough about the Civil Service to say. The othre bodies though are moe dynamic than that from what I know. Certainly the universities are.

Either way I am of the very strong belief that the public sector as a whole needs a bit of a looking at. So many areas have glaring ineffecencies and are wasting money and this needs to be tackled. Blanket wage cuts and pension levies are not the best option. In fact they are the worst. It doesn't add anything to the service the areas provide and just hits the workers pockets and reduces their spending ability. Tackling the ineffecencies etc could improve service and drive down costs. Surely that should be the first option.

yoshytoshy

pete wrote: »

I'm on leave.

I'm on sick benefit of €200 a week at the moment ,hoping I get the all clear to go back to a construction job.

jim o doom

dvpower wrote: »

Granted. This may be true for some specialist roles. This is why in the Revenue they have specialist grades. e.g. Tax Offier, Higher Tax Offier...

But if, say, a qualified accountant with 5 years experience wants to join the Revenue, shouldn't they be allowed to, as long as they can pass the barrier. HTOs in Revenue regulary leave the CS to take up good jobs in the Accounting firms. It seems to make sense that Revenue would benefit from a two way street.

Better still, a HTO leaves Revenue, spends a few years working in an accounting firm, and then moves back to Revenue (maybe as an Inspector of Taxes).

Actually once again, you are wrong I am afraid. The position of Tax Officer & Higher Tax officer simply no longer exists. Those who were tax officers are now CLERICAL officers - and they signed away their rights (this was before my time here btw, but my colleagues have suffered from it) - on the basis of advice from the unions that there would be promotions to EO's, HEO's (managmenet levels) etc.

These promotions never occurred - I have 2 good friends in here, who were both Tax officers & are now clerical officers - one was moved to PAYE and we lost a significant amount of experience in our area due to that - if the other leaves, the only proper repositiories of tax knowledge we will have are our two bosses - and guess what, they are not always there & have enough of their own work to do, that it is necessary for ALL of the clerical officers to be knowledgable in their respective tax areas, so that we can answer queries and help people out.

So, again I ask - in this actual real situation, how would high movement of staff help either the district or the people it serves?

jim o doom

yoshytoshy wrote: »

To be honest ,if all you amount to is quotes to newspaper articles ,why are you posting on a discussion board ?

If everything was as plain cut as the papers have made out for the last ten years ,we'd be in havanna.

In fairness I could say the same thing about you, sir - but replace "quotes to newspaper articles" with "typical attitudes with nothing to back them up".

I agree it's not all plain cut - but you seem UTTERLY unwilling to see that there may be another side to it.

dvpower

thomasj wrote: »

Yes based on your college qualifications you can end up on any one of those grades.

yes, a small subset of all the possible grades, and at the starting point of the grade. (restrictions)

thomasj wrote: »

Also in private sectors do they not look for staff or managers with relevant experience/qualifications?

yes, as long as you have the qualifications and experience, you can join at any level in the organisation and negotiate your pay accordingly (less restrictions)

dvpower

jim o doom wrote: »

Actually once again, you are wrong I am afraid. The position of Tax Officer & Higher Tax officer simply no longer exists. Those who were tax officers are now CLERICAL officers - and they signed away their rights (this was before my time here btw, but my colleagues have suffered from it) - on the basis of advice from the unions that there would be promotions to EO's, HEO's (managmenet levels) etc.

Sorry, I'm a bit out of date with Revenue's internals

jim o doom wrote: »

So, again I ask - in this actual real situation, how would high movement of staff help either the district or the people it serves?

Asked and answered, see above.

jim o doom

dvpower wrote: »

Sorry, I'm a bit out of date with Revenue's internals



Asked and answered, see above.

ok earlier you posted >

dvpower wrote: »

But if, say, a qualified accountant with 5 years experience wants to join the Revenue, shouldn't they be allowed to, as long as they can pass the barrier. HTOs in Revenue regulary leave the CS to take up good jobs in the Accounting firms. It seems to make sense that Revenue would benefit from a two way street. Better still, a HTO leaves Revenue, spends a few years working in an accounting firm, and then moves back to Revenue (maybe as an Inspector of Taxes).

Literally everything you mention is in relation to the management posts which get paid SO much. yes, people do leave for the private industry; and guess what - on our jobs website there are positions there for people with degrees in respective areas (accountants etc) so there is nothing preventing them from coming to work here (except for the current hiring freeze of course).

The simple fact is that the CO's (i.e. people like me on 26k) ALSO need to remember and learn a large amount of taxation information. We do not get renumerated for this, nor can we move to a similar sector outside our job, because we are not qualified.

If CO's with a large amount of knowledge, which helps the job run a lot more smoothly - because the managers have plenty of their own work - leave an area, and someone new arrives, that person too must LEARN a lot of stuff, which takes a significant amount of time.. i.e. they have not done taxation or accountancy in college.

How does movement of the lower paid staff - who I am a member of & are the sector I tend to be defending most, because we don't get paid much - help the sector? - it's all good and well if fully trained and qualified staff are moving around - but the simple fact is, that the "regular" staff have the info, but not the qualifications, if they leave you get a person in with no knowledge and a large amount of help/ability leaves the area.

If that was happening constantly - then the only people who would really understand the taxation, the legislation & the customers needs would be the managers - the people NOT dealing directly with said customers - i.e. the public.

K-9

pete wrote: »

So about €21,500? (technically a CO on the first two points of the scale has no job security since they're on probation)

edit: Actually I'm basing that figure on the assumption that the ESRI's "30% premium" means they're being paid 130% of what they should be. If you were to say that they should only get 70% of what they're on now then that works out €17,078. Or €19,640 if we include your assumption of 15% for pension, but not including the new pension levy they'll soon be hit with. Worth bearing in mind that the last round of benchmarking suppressed salaries by 12% because of these pension entitlements, so your 15% is a double hit.



As little as possible, ho ho ho.



It used to be the basic paper shuffling, form filling, data entry stuff, but they're also the people on social welfare or tax office counters. There are also COs doing IT helpdesk support (and i'm not talking the CO IT grades here - just regular COs) and other more specialised work.

pete wrote: »

Reading comprehension may not be yours!



Or about €21.5K. Like I said, I've included your 15% pension assumption.

I gave two figures - ((salary / 130 )x 100) + 15% vs ((salary / 100) * 70) + 15%

The original figure is €24,397.

24,397/130 = 187.67*100 = 18,767.

18,767*115 = 21,582.

Your post was a little misleading as it provided 2 figures after the edit.

pete wrote:

Don't think so, but 12% was assumed in the last round of benchmarking to allow for its benefit.

No, but we aren't chatting about benchmarking, this is the ESRI Report.

thomasj wrote: »

The point made was



I responded with



Heres a slightly more reliable source than the herald!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0909/1220629652929.html



This was last september bear in mind that since last january there has been a recruitment freeze in the public sector, retired folk not being replaced and a pay freeze as well

So basically there was a big increase in the last 10 years in numbers. That contradicts what you said was nonsense.

You have confused percentages with numbers. Given the huge increases in the labour force from 96 to 06/07, that is to be expected.

PS. Nice side track on the sources, not the facts.

K-9

O'Toole wrote:

]It simply doesn't matter that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development pointed out earlier this year that public spending is actually lower in proportion to the size of the economy than it was a decade ago,

That would be expected when the economy has grown so much. The other irony here is that Toole must have missed the fact that the economy had shrunk by 20/25% when he wrote that article.

How'd he miss that, when he is one of the biggest critics of the false Construction Boom? Tbh, the Herald makes more sense! So much for sources!

O'Toole wrote:

and that "government policy therefore has actually decreased the total number of public sector employees as a percentage of the labour force and decreased the overall public sector wage bill as a percentage of GDP".

He doesn't actually give the percentages or any norms to say this is a bad thing. Also, GNP is a better basis to use as GDP doesn't take account of multi national profits leaving the country.

O'Toole wrote:

Almost a fifth of all employees earn less than €10 an hour

What has that got to do with the Public Sector? Even the starter CO Level earns more than that on €24,397 a year.

O'Toole wrote:

We could start by not relying on hackneyed half-truths.

Indeed. Maybe the O'Toole will start with himself.

Sleepy

jim o doom wrote: »

These promotions never occurred - I have 2 good friends in here, who were both Tax officers & are now clerical officers - one was moved to PAYE and we lost a significant amount of experience in our area due to that - if the other leaves, the only proper repositiories of tax knowledge we will have are our two bosses - and guess what, they are not always there & have enough of their own work to do, that it is necessary for ALL of the clerical officers to be knowledgable in their respective tax areas, so that we can answer queries and help people out.

Are you actually giving out about a pay reduction while telling us that yourself and your colleagues (barring your bosses and one other) don't have the knowledge to do your jobs?

jim o doom wrote: »

The simple fact is that the CO's (i.e. people like me on 26k) ALSO need to remember and learn a large amount of taxation information. We do not get renumerated for this, nor can we move to a similar sector outside our job, because we are not qualified.

Why aren't you qualified? Call this a stupid assumption if you like but it would seem to me that someone with experience of working in a Tax Office should be capable of processing payroll for a company paying into that Tax Office, filing a Tax Return to that Office, helping people minimise their Tax Liability etc...

If CO's with a large amount of knowledge, which helps the job run a lot more smoothly - because the managers have plenty of their own work - leave an area, and someone new arrives, that person too must LEARN a lot of stuff, which takes a significant amount of time.. i.e. they have not done taxation or accountancy in college.

Why on earth would you hire someone to work in a tax office if they've not studied *both* taxation and accountancy in college? I work in an IT company selling financial software and most of our recruits to the entry positions will have studied both IT and Accounting or will have a qualification and a decent degree of experience in one or the other and will be trained up on the rest.

pete

K-9 wrote: »

No, the original figure is €24,397.

24,397/130 = 187.67*100 = 18,767.

18,767*115 = 21,582.

Your post was a little misleading as it provided 2 figures after the edit.

"No"? No what? And "misleading"?

Look, it's not hard to follow:

pete wrote: »

just on that ESRI survey - so a CO starting on €24,397 is being paid about €5,500 (i.e. 30%) too much?

K-9 wrote: »

Good question. I suppose you'd need to add on the Pension calculation, about 15% and rising and job security if permanent.

pete wrote: »

So about €21,500? (technically a CO on the first two points of the scale has no job security since they're on probation)

edit: Actually I'm basing that figure on the assumption that the ESRI's "30% premium" means they're being paid 130% of what they should be. If you were to say that they should only get 70% of what they're on now then that works out €17,078. Or €19,640 if we include your assumption of 15% for pension, but not including the new pension levy they'll soon be hit with.

K-9 wrote: »

The pay figure would be €18,766, the €24,397 is 130%, not 100%. Maths may not be your strong point!

Add on the 15% for the pension, though remember this value is increasing, we get €21,581.

pete wrote: »

Like I said, I've included your 15% pension assumption.

I gave two figures - ((salary / 130 )x 100) + 15% vs ((salary / 100) * 70) + 15%

Is it really that hard to see that €21,583 (your figure) = "about €21,500" (my figure)? I mean, really?


ANYWAY

What comparable non-public sector jobs pay €18,766? Or €21,583 if you prefer? That being the point of the question I asked about 24 pages back, given that the ESRI thinks that's what COs should be paid when they start.

windsurfer99ie

otwb wrote: »

Are these the same teachers that get a €5k allowance for having a degree and can earn over 60k for the same job they were paid a 35k starting salary for just for hanging on in there for 20 years or so?

...35k starting salary for nine months work a year ain't that bad...

I'm 47, I teach Maths and Physics in a Community School on a twelve month temporary contract, I have no access to a pension and yet I have to take the pay cut with everyone else, even though it is unlikely that I will ever see a pension (I will probably lose my job this year or next). Oh, and before the cut I was on around 50K. I never go away in the summer - I'm always looking for work. If it's such a soft option, you try it.

K-9

pete wrote: »

"No"? No what? And "misleading"?

It's 21,500. I don't know why you put in the 70% figure.

Anyway.

Pete wrote:

What comparable non-public sector jobs pay €18,766? Or €21,583 if you prefer? That being the point of the question I asked about 24 pages back, given that the ESRI thinks that's what COs should be paid when they start.

Secretary in my office for one.

jim o doom

Sleepy wrote: »

Are you actually giving out about a pay reduction while telling us that yourself and your colleagues (barring your bosses and one other) don't have the knowledge to do your jobs?

Actually - I never posted that we don't have the knowledge to do our jobs, I don't know where you are getting that AT ALL. I posted that the two people who had a specific grade (Tax Officer) which I NEVER HELD - were basically demoted and if they leave, then there are fewer staff with full understanding of LEGISLATION. Legislation is not required to deal with forms, but it helps if a customer rings up with a complicated query, that would normally go to a manager, because guess what - managers have plenty of work to do too.Also, I have a strong understanding of most legislation, but if you'd care to have a quick look at the VAT legislation and see how intelligent you feel after going through it - it's massively complicated and requires education to understand it.

So - I do my job & take on any extra work needed and understand what needs to be done, yet my wages are due a cut, which as a percentage of what I earn, due to "tax releif" is lower than what a very well paid manager will be receiving - THAT is what I am complaining about and fighting against

Sleepy wrote: »

Why aren't you qualified? Call this a stupid assumption if you like but it would seem to me that someone with experience of working in a Tax Office should be capable of processing payroll for a company paying into that Tax Office, filing a Tax Return to that Office, helping people minimise their Tax Liability etc...</p>

I am not qualified because I did a year in art college, got a cert and left - I am not the sort of person able to study with no pay for several years, so I joined first the private workforce, first as a printer, then call marketing, a call centre & vague tech support as well & finally here in the public service - simple answer - I can't/won't/am unwilling & am financially unable to do college. I could do all the things you say I could do, tax returns, etc but I am NOT qualified to do so. My life plan is leave this country and open up a martial arts studio, which is my passion - does that mean that now I should lie down adn take it in the ass when I do my job well & answer intelligently questions that should REALLY be going to a manager? no it certainly doesn't

Sleepy wrote: »

Why on earth would you hire someone to work in a tax office if they've not studied *both* taxation and accountancy in college? I work in an IT company selling financial software and most of our recruits to the entry positions will have studied both IT and Accounting or will have a qualification and a decent degree of experience in one or the other and will be trained up on the rest.

The reason being that the simple processing of forms does not require a college degree - however part of our job (answering the phones) involves answering peoples tax queries - which we get training on, however it takes time working in an area before you actually fully understand the ins and outs of any specific tax - due to the MASSIVE amount of detail involved - which you would understand if you had looked at ANY book of taxation legisltation.