Civil Servants on Less than 60K!!

jim o doom

K-9 wrote: »

Secretary in my office for one.

So does that mean in your opinion that all clerical officer staff are fit only to be secretaries?

yoshytoshy

Similar to circus criteria.

pete

K-9 wrote: »

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

ughhhhh for the simple reason that a "30% premium" might - might - be read to mean either "paid 30% over and above what should be paid", or it might be read to mean "should be paid 30% less".

I'm happy to go with the former.

seangal

the fact is everybody had the chance to get a public sector job but most look at it as a low paid job and went into the private sector for greed.
i have my first class honours degree and i am at present doing my masters part time i am a public sector employee on 60k and i work hard to get where i am and yes i deserve it
the money i earn goes back in to the private sector to keep private sector employees in work the same way as the money that they get keeps me in a job

jim o doom

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Similar to circus criteria.

funny - and I always thought they hired from the zoo for the construction industry.

yoshytoshy

jim o doom wrote: »

funny - and I always thought they hired from the zoo for the construction industry.

God help this country ,I mean that sincerely.

dvpower

I feel some common ground coming on.

jim o doom wrote: »

ok earlier you posted >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).

At higher levels and for some professional and technical roles there certainly is more movement. But there isn't anywhere near the amount of movement that applies to the private sector.

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.

Accepted. I'm astounded that TO/HTOs negotiated away their grade. You had what amounted to a defacto professional qualification (years of experience at the coalface of taxation and a barrier exam that I know people put a lot of effort into passing) and it seems that you gave it up for nothing much concrete.

jim o doom wrote: »

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.

If the public sector was reformed, management would be able to reward COs with indepth knowledge of the tax system. Similarly, a joe off the street wouldn't get a look in, because he wouldn't have the requisite skills. An accounting technician wouldn't be attracted now because of the low pay but if the pay was linked to the value of the work, not just to a paygrade, he might be.

But it seems that at the moment, a CO with no taxation knowledge can go and work in a PAYE district, while there is no special incentive for a CO with specialist knowledge to continue working there.

jim o doom wrote: »

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.

Point taken.

K-9

jim o doom wrote: »

So does that mean in your opinion that all clerical officer staff are fit only to be secretaries?

Nope. Remember the €24,397 or €21,500 is a starting salary. It isn't for the secretary I know.

IYO, what does "fit only to be secretaries mean?"

K-9

pete wrote: »

ughhhhh for the simple reason that a "30% premium" might - might - be read to mean either "paid 30% over and above what should be paid", or it might be read to mean "should be paid 30% less".

I'm happy to go with the former.

It specifically mentions 130% though. Anyway.

mountainyman

K-9 wrote: »

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

Anyway.




Secretary in my office for one.

My sister earns 40K a year and she's a sec(X)retary

jim o doom

K-9 wrote: »

Nope. Remember the €24,397 or €21,500 is a starting salary. It isn't for the secretary I know.

IYO, what does "fit only to be secretaries mean?"

my opinion being that secretaries in society have generally been regarded as one of the lowest levels of employment in professional industry; when the other poster suggested what our wages are to be reduced to and asked if there was a comparible sector in industry receiving this "potential" wage - you mentionned secretary, correct?

It was not meant to be a jibe at secretaries - but it is perceived to be a generally very low level job - regardless of what our wages ACTUALLY are (as you posted above) - I was referring to the wage drop that was suggested and the workforce you stated which receives that payment as a comparison.

When I said "fit only to be secretaries" it seemed to me, that from your post you considered all clerical staff to be only capable of this low level of work.

mountainyman

molloyjh wrote: »

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:

If they don't like it they can leave. It is crazy that the lowest of the low in the civil service are the best paid.

K-9

jim o doom wrote: »

When I said "fit only to be secretaries" it seemed to me, that from your post you considered all clerical staff to be only capable of this low level of work.

Fair enough, I think you may have a stereotypical view of a secretary though.

Sleepy

jim o doom wrote: »

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



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



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.

Having gone to college and earned a B.Comm and worked on financial software (i.e. having both studied it and tailored software to deal with VAT, Witholding Tax, Sub Contractors Tax etc. - and the annual changes to these from legislation), while I'm not Taxation expert, I have an understanding of Taxation and the complexity it can stretch to.

Frankly, it amazes me that the Tax Office would hire someone without at least something like a B.Comm for anything other than data-entry / rubber stamping duties. If the workload requires people to know the legislation in detail to deal with the customers / handle the more complicated stuff whilst the rubber-stampers deal with the ordinary throughput then there are two distincly different positions there - an unskilled one and one with a requirement of a level of qualification - and they should clearly be remunerated accordingly.

jim o doom

K-9 wrote: »

Fair enough, I think you may have a stereotypical view of a secretary though.

Maybe a little.. but I was basing what I was saying not on what I think of secretaries, but on the general view in society..

molloyjh

mountainyman wrote: »

If they don't like it they can leave. It is crazy that the lowest of the low in the civil service are the best paid.

Ah yes because you face danger and potentially fatal situations on a daily basis while doing your part for the country....what is it you said you did again!?

I've often had cause to wonder who these "lowest of the low" people are. Is it the working class you are refering to here given that this was how you categorised prison guards earlier? I've often found some very well off people to be of lower moral fibre than many working class purely because of their bigotry and inflated sense of self-worth.

Prison guards do not get a particularly good salary, nor a particularly poor one. Their money comes from overtime due to massive under-resourcing. I have no problem with them getting the money because they earn it, and they earn it an awful lot more honestly than a lot of pencil pushers (like me) do.

diverdriver

seangal wrote: »

the fact is everybody had the chance to get a public sector job but most look at it as a low paid job and went into the private sector for greed.
i have my first class honours degree and i am at present doing my masters part time i am a public sector employee on 60k and i work hard to get where i am and yes i deserve it
the money i earn goes back in to the private sector to keep private sector employees in work the same way as the money that they get keeps me in a job

Now that's a classic, seangal are you trying to give all public servants a bad name? Of course I took all my low paid private sector jobs for greed. Should have joined the army, I suppose.:rolleyes: Maybe you would like to tell all the factory workers and shop staff about their greed.

60K is good money, are you sure you didn't join for greed? In the private sector if you get paid 60k, it's because you've earned at least that much for the company. Probably ten times as much.

I really love the idea that public service money is keeping private sector employees in work. Considering their entire salary is paid for by private sector taxes. So at least they get some of it back. A better method might be to get rid of a few public servants so the private sector employees can have reduced taxes. But that would be greedy.:p

BTW During your first class honours degree studies. Didn't anyone mention the old upper case 'I' thing?

Don't want to personalise it, but if your viewpoint is typical of public service employees then you are all in for a big shock soon.:D

jim o doom

diverdriver wrote: »

Don't want to personalise it, but if your viewpoint is typical of public service employees then you are all in for a big shock soon.:D

That's a VERY big "if" there dude - I don't mind that I will have to pay a levy (well I do, but it's necessary).

I am on 26 k a year - an ok wage, but not amazing, same as most of my friends in the CS. What I have a problem with is the unfair amount we are being asked to pay - in my book a signifcant percentage more should be coming from the well paid management staff, not those paid little - like myself.

I have a mortgage to pay & I'm getting married, my fiancee earns more than I do - but not a massive amount more, in the private sector.

Most CS workers I know would be happy(to a degree, myself included) to pay a levy, but it is unfairly weighted and biased against those who are paid the least, and I for one am happy to fight against that.

nice_guy80

wll everytime you open the paper they compare the salaries of the highest grade public servant - whether it is in the civil service, gardai, teachers etc

so thats people who have given 40 years service and have risen up through all the ranks

they NEVER compare lowest grade public servants

diverdriver

Well as it happens, I don't think all government employees think like that. I don't live in a private sector bubble after all. But anyone who thinks like that needs a wake up call.

In fact I agree that the lower paid are worse affected by the levy. That's another example of this incompetent government at it's worst. However the PS unions were in there and could have negotiated that aspect of it. Instead they walked out and left the fools in charge. Probably because the unions lacked the guts to make the right decisions. Now they are planning strikes and chaos. This country is on it's knees. Right now your unions want to drag it into the gutter and kick it to death.

26k is low, no doubt. But consider this. I quit a job last year in the private sector. I was on 23.5k. I was only there a year and half but that was the same rate as colleagues who were there ten years. That includes bonuses. So when I read about greed in the private sector. It makes my blood boil.

Right now, not one single permanent public service employee has lost their job or is in danger of doing so. Meanwhile every day the dole queue gets longer and longer. Yet the PS have the luxury of going on strike?

Is there something wrong with this picture?

ParkRunner

Personally I think the biggest problem is that those who are at the lower salary scales in both the public and private sector are being made to suffer disproportionately.
Also the difference between the top and the bottom of the civil service in terms of annual pay is about a multiple of ten.
The difference in the private sector is a multiple of..well it is anyones guess..150, 200?

mccutchie

Guys this public v private debate is becomming a bore. The government in their typically crass way have spun this to take as much heat as possibly off them and let the workers of ireland fight and argue amongst themselves.

This is an unfair tax, plain and simple. I'm not a public servent, never have been, but I have read about the pension levy and although it is necessary, not in the proposed implementation.
The government are winging it in my opinion, they are a stale bunch who lack any progressive ideas. They continue to entertain the banks and if they keep carrying on in this vain, the pain for us paye workers is going to become very difficult in the coming years.

Rant over for now

Sleepy

nice_guy80 wrote: »

wll everytime you open the paper they compare the salaries of the highest grade public servant - whether it is in the civil service, gardai, teachers etc

so thats people who have given 40 years service and have risen up through all the ranks

they NEVER compare lowest grade public servants

What amazes me is the huge difference between the starting and finishing salaries of people performing the exact same function throughout their career. Sure, in theory you'll get better at doing something the longer you're at it but how many of us had a teacher that was clearly just winding down the years until they could retire (purely taken as an example here, not targeting teachers specifically)? I know people that have jobs that can only be described as manual labour raking in over 80k a year due to length of service increments.

It's not just a public sector thing I'll admit, but it's a pain in the ass dealing with complete incompetents that are on huge money because their boss hasn't been able to fire them for the last 20 years. People should be paid according to their output, ability and talent not the number of years they've shown up and punched a clock card.

seangal

Guys today is the day
I call on all hard working people who are being given pay cuts ect to move there electricity supply to bord gais from midday today.
If we all start the move maybe it will send a signal to the ESB after they gave the 3.5% pay increase to there staff when the county is going down the tube
Act now and move you ESB bill today at midday.

molloyjh

diverdriver wrote: »

Is there something wrong with this picture?

Not really. The very nature of public sector vs private sector explains why this is the case. The employers in the private sector face a very real risk in this climate of going under where-as that risk isn't as high (doesn't really exist) on a State level. It's not like Ireland can close down. So the demand for employees will remain for the State where it wouldn't for a private company. The State, for example, will always need a certain number of Gardai to police the country, where-as a private companies needs vary a lot depending on demand and market conditions etc.

The levels of emplotment in the public sector have gone down in the last year with recruitment freezes and non-renewal of temporary contracts etc so it's not like there has been no change there. But they still need a certain number of staff to get the job done, and the job itself hasn't really changed for many of them and doesn't depend, as much anyway, on markets etc. It's just the nature of the beast.

mountainyman

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah yes because you face danger and potentially fatal situations on a daily basis while doing your part for the country....what is it you said you did again!?

More like you are happy to keep working class people locked up for stealing sandwiches while the rich get away with millions. They are doing their bit for the rich alright they are the enemies of Ireland.

Prison guards don't face danger when's the last time one of them got knife in the stomach or a can of petrol thrown over him.

irish_bob

diverdriver wrote: »

Now that's a classic, seangal are you trying to give all public servants a bad name? Of course I took all my low paid private sector jobs for greed. Should have joined the army, I suppose.:rolleyes: Maybe you would like to tell all the factory workers and shop staff about their greed.

60K is good money, are you sure you didn't join for greed? In the private sector if you get paid 60k, it's because you've earned at least that much for the company. Probably ten times as much.

I really love the idea that public service money is keeping private sector employees in work. Considering their entire salary is paid for by private sector taxes. So at least they get some of it back. A better method might be to get rid of a few public servants so the private sector employees can have reduced taxes. But that would be greedy.:p

BTW During your first class honours degree studies. Didn't anyone mention the old upper case 'I' thing?

Don't want to personalise it, but if your viewpoint is typical of public service employees then you are all in for a big shock soon.:D

dont you know that its impossible to be greedy in the public sector , its all for mother ireland you know

kmick

I dont see it as a tax - rather a mandatory contribution to shore up your failing defined benefit pension system. Its for your own good

ParkRunner

kmick wrote: »

I dont see it as a tax - rather a mandatory contribution to shore up your failing defined benefit pension system. Its for your own good

Officially it is being called a 'Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest'. What isnt these days

molloyjh

mountainyman wrote: »

More like you are happy to keep working class people locked up for stealing sandwiches while the rich get away with millions. They are doing their bit for the rich alright they are the enemies of Ireland.

Prison guards don't face danger when's the last time one of them got knife in the stomach or a can of petrol thrown over him.

:rolleyes:

I don't know where you're getting any of that nonesense from. It's hardly on topic now though so I shall not be responding any further.