Job losses - public sector

thomasj

ixoy wrote: »

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

i would consider an eo a manager because of their responsibility of lower staff cs well as other managemental duties.

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

EO's would be classed junior management in terms of their role profile. I have staff working to me that I have to manage, but an EO's role and responsibilities will not be the same in every situation.

ronbyrne2005

ixoy wrote: »

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

Also , the real value of the PS compensation package is much larger due to heavily subsidised gold plated pension, less unpaid overtime,mileage, more flexible work arrangements etc etc.

ParkRunner

On another note, one of the reasons so many civil service jobs had to be created in recent years was because of the escalation in litigation taken against the State, especially since PIAB was created and even more especially with the disappearance of conveyancing. Someone has to defend and administer these cases.

Kimbot

Ste.phen wrote: »

I know this has probably been done to death somewhere else but can someone explain the concept of 'increments' to me? It sounded like automatic pay raises given for length of service, without any appraisal or increase in responsibility. Does that sound right?
I fully understand the 'grade' system (though think it's archaic) where the pay raises come with extra work and responsibility, but the increments seem suspiciously like getting paid more for just hanging around.
Surely that doesn't help with the 'deadwood' problem mentioned before?

(and i've head a PS worker before say that because moving up a grade isn't always possible for (essentially) internal political reasons, that they need the increments to have any sense of progression - but surely the problem there is that 'internal politics' are allowed justify progression?)

Each year you fill out what is call an RPF (Role Profile Form) with your manager, you agree your job role and what you will get done in the next 12 months. During the year you have an interm review to see if you are meeting your objectives. Then at the end of the year you are rated by your manager to see how you done.

If you met the criteria then you will receive you increment (My last one was €800 increase in my salary for the year), if you don't meet the criteria then you don't get it.

ixoy wrote: »

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

HEO starts around the 46k mark.
EO starts at around 30k.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circulars2008/paysept2008.pdf

new=user

Hi I am over 30 and have just worked in public sector for last few years. Prior to that i worked in IT. My salary was way higher in private sector and had lots of perks. I joined civil service as a clerical officer. I only joined as there were no jobs down country in IT. I had the same perception before joining that civil servants had a very easy life. This is not the case for all. The first department i worked for was very busy and i worked very hard for my appalling low wages. I then eventually got a transfer to a department closer to my home. This particular dept wasn't that busy and could def have done with less staff.

I then managed to get promoted (by doing multiple exams and interviews and finally managing to pass one). My salary at a supervisory level is still far lower than what it was in private sector.

Reason for all this background information was so you understand where i coming from. I am horrified at some of the unreasonable comments in this thread. Yes a small minority of civil servants dont work as hard as they should and i agree that automatic increments were wrong. But this has actually changed. In the dept i am in now you have to get a certain rating on your review or you do not get your increment.

As i said i only joined a few years ago and if i work till i am 70 i still wont have full service so no gold-plated penision for me. Also where did the notion of this gold plated pension come from. Any tiny pension i get will have the social welfare pension deducted from it and will be pro-rated. The extra money being taken from me in this levy will not give me extra money in my pension.

My job is not permanent. I am actually on probation for my promotion and genuinely fear for my job if i dont perform well enough. The phones are constantly ringing off the hook in my section and we dont have half enough staff. I often go in before 8 (which i dont get the time for) to try and get started on my work.

Some changes are necessary in public service but what private company doesn't need changes? Dont tar everyone with same brush and dont assume all civil servants have life of reilly!! Btw how many people posting on here or reading posts have internet access at work? There is none in my department...........

Godge

Gurgle wrote: »

Average pay in the public sector is €945 per week - equates to a salary of €50k. We know that front-line staff (teachers, nurses, gardai etc) are not earning an average of €50k.

Average industrial wage is €32k, its clear that the public sector is way out of line.

Its not executive level staff, theres only around 10,000 of them (link), which is pretty much in line with similar sized organizations in the private sector.

Something has to account for the discrepancy. Somewhere out there are a dis-proportionate number of people on higher salaries bringing the average up.

Enter middle management.

More rubbish.

Teachers with an honours degree start on the third point of the common basic scale - €34,907. The honours degree gets them €5,177 and they get at least a supevision allowance of €1,800 giving a new teacher a salary of €42,000. there are a heap of other allowances - check a teachers union website. After five years a teacher is on at least 50,000 and still has 17 increments to get to the top of the scale by which time an ordinary teacher (not a class head or deputy principal or anything) will be earning around 70k.

Nurses and gardai payscales are similarly misleading. They receive shift payments of between one-sixth and one-quarter. They have plenty of other allowances as well and engrained overtime.

I have no doubt that if you measured the average actual salary received by nurses, guards and teachers, you get an average of more than €50,000.

With the civil service scales, what you see is what they get.

Godge

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Good that you acknowledged the real measure using GNP, but those figures are very misleading. They take no account of scope and comprehensiveness of public sector in any country. In other OECD countries they have large military expenditure, lower class sizes, free at source GP and dental care, low cost or free at source child care and endless other public services that we dont have in Ireland. Also the OECD reports dont measure and cant measure the quality of public services.
Also we have the highest public sector pay/pensions packages in OECD which means less of the public sector workers that are required can be recuited as the existing ones have to be paid so much more than rest OECD.
We also have lower taxes than all those countries you mention which means people have more after tax income and can decide themselves how to spend this income on services like GP etc which are provided as free public services in other countries. It's the same at end of day as you pay through your taxes for these public services or directly with after tax income if public sector doesnt provide it.

Where is the statistic that says we have the highest public sector pay/pensions packages in OECD?

Of course, if we spend less of our GNP or GDP on the public sector, of course we have a less comprehensive public sector.

My main point is that at the macro level, we have a small public sector by international standards and just wielding an axe to public spending won't solve anything. We have huge problems at micro levels, our health service and education sectors have inefficient overpaid front-line delivery with the health service also having a hugely inefficient bureaucracy. A plethora of unnecessary state organisations with duplicated back-office services is a problem but is not of the same size. Our civil service is extremely small by international standards. Its main weakness is an inability to shift resources where they are needed. For example, if D/Agrculture clerical staff are no longer processing farm waste management grants, why can't they be moved immediately to Social Welfare to process unemployment payments.

Addressing these micro issues will involve taking on the large powerful public sector trade unions (the nurses, the guards, the teachers, the CPSU) and I don't think the Govt. has the bottle for that.

johnnyrotten

jimmmy wrote: »

It was in one of the Sunday broadsheets a week or two ago. Its well know our public sector wage rates are way out of line. At the bottom, the dole in this country is more than the minimum wage in the UK. At the top, our Taoiseach is paid more than the President of USA, Germany, France or thep.m. of the UK...all much much bigger, industrialised nations. Get real. Our public finances are unsustainable.

Wages in Irish Private Sector are way out of line too!

ixoy

EF wrote: »

EO's would be classed junior management in terms of their role profile. I have staff working to me that I have to manage, but an EO's role and responsibilities will not be the same in every situation.

Fair enough - none of the EOs I work appear to have any management duty so I guess it varies from department (I know of HEOs with only 1-2 people working for them). Friend of mine is an EO and he has nobody he has to surprive either.

I would consider my own role roughly equivalent to an EO in the CS - I have supervisory input into other people, I help manage their workload, but I don't see it as junior management.

Looking at that, I see after the first year there's a 7% pay increase (which would be even more if there were adjustments for inflation) with a bit of a drop after that (5% + whatever else was agreed due to inflation). To me it looks like the wages start reasonably low (relatively) but they increase quite decently after a few years - johnny24ie you mention you have to justify the increase, but in reality who doesn't get the annual increments? Given it's based on PMDS and hardly anyone gets a 1, surely these are almost guaranteed?

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

Fair enough - none of the EOs I work appear to have any management duty so I guess it varies from department (I know of HEOs with only 1-2 people working for them). Friend of mine is an EO and he has nobody he has to surprive either.

I would consider my own role roughly equivalent to an EO in the CS - I have supervisory input into other people, I help manage their workload, but I don't see it as junior management.

Looking at that, I see after the first year there's a 7% pay increase (which would be even more if there were adjustments for inflation) with a bit of a drop after that (5% + whatever else was agreed due to inflation). To me it looks like the wages start reasonably low (relatively) but they increase quite decently after a few years - johnny24ie you mention you have to justify the increase, but in reality who doesn't get the annual increments? Given it's based on PMDS and hardly anyone gets a 1, surely these are almost guaranteed?

Is it such a bad thing to expect some bit of a payrise after putting in a years work? If you are a half decent employee you will have added value to your employer whether in the public sector or the private sector through increased experience and knowledge

ixoy

EF wrote: »

Is it such a bad thing to expect some bit of a payrise after putting in a years work? If you are a half decent employee you will have added value to your employer whether in the public sector or the private sector through increased experience and knowledge

Except firstly you mighn't have added any value because, as discussed in other threads, there's little merit basis to it. It's sound enough in theory, but it needs reform as well (as indeed many public servants themselves have agreed on other threads).

More to the point, we can't afford it either - it's interesting to note that, for those who just joined the levy cut would be somewhat offset by their automatic pay rise. It wouldn't bring it back up, true, but it does mean it's harder to swallow the idea they're on a "pay freeze". We should be looking at freezing these increments too, for now as they're just unpalatable.

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

It wouldn't bring it back up, true, but it does mean it's harder to swallow the idea they're on a "pay freeze". We should be looking at freezing these increments too, for now as they're just unpalatable.

My role was created to defend against (usually baseless) litigation from private sector law firms taking cases against the State. When they stop my role will become redundant. Until then I have no choice

Gurgle

Godge wrote: »

More rubbish.

Teachers with an honours degree start on the third point of the common basic scale - €34,907. The honours degree gets them €5,177 and they get at least a supevision allowance of €1,800 giving a new teacher a salary of €42,000...

When rubbishing someone else's claims and throwing your own figures around, its traditional to link to some sources.

jimmmy

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Good that you acknowledged the real measure using GNP, but those figures are very misleading. They take no account of scope and comprehensiveness of public sector in any country. In other OECD countries they have large military expenditure, lower class sizes, free at source GP and dental care, low cost or free at source child care and endless other public services that we dont have in Ireland. Also the OECD reports dont measure and cant measure the quality of public services.
Also we have the highest public sector pay/pensions packages in OECD which means less of the public sector workers that are required can be recuited as the existing ones have to be paid so much more than rest OECD.

Also public sector expenditure as a percentage of GNP is misleading in Ireland because our figures are skewed by multinationals paying their overseas profits through Ireland to avail of our low corporation tax. eg we are looked on a a tax have by some multinationals abroad who are known to pass billions through offices employing a few people.

Our public sector needs job cuts and pay cuts , fast.

P. Breathnach

Gurgle wrote: »

When rubbishing someone else's claims and throwing your own figures around, its traditional to link to some sources.

That's a bit rich coming from somebody who made an unsupported and inaccurate claim! I am sure that you remember saying

Average pay in the public sector is €945 per week - equates to a salary of €50k. We know that front-line staff (teachers, nurses, gardai etc) are not earning an average of €50.

Try this: http://www.tui.ie/Salary_Scales/Default.286.html

nhughes100

jimmmy wrote: »

Also public sector expenditure as a percentage of GNP is misleading in Ireland because our figures are skewed by multinationals paying their overseas profits through Ireland to avail of our low corporation tax. eg we are looked on a a tax have by some multinationals abroad who are known to pass billions through offices employing a few people.

Our public sector needs job cuts and pay cuts , fast.

Jimmmy, in short lets have some put up or shut up, your posts are Eddie Hobbs populist rhetoric. Lets have some figures on how you would cut all the "dead wood" and all the inefficiences in the gold plated public service without impacting frontline services. Lets aim for 10 billion euro. That'll get us some of the way there. Give us numbers in departments and give us grades and payscales that you would cull. Don't forget you'll have to pay redundancy and pay them dole as well as other social and medical benefits. Not to mention the reduced tax take next year.


All you bashers are the same people that start moaning when your bins aren't collected, when it takes 6 months to get a tax disc for a car, when your kids are crammed into classrooms, when someones stuck on a trolley in a+e, when there's no college spaces and the points hit the roof etc etc etc.

ParkRunner

Copied straight from my payslip. The only earnings I get are my salary. No bonuses and no overtime. There are now 4 pension related deductions as well as the Income levy, PAYE and PRSI and deductions are only going to rise!


Gross Earnings
Description
Salary

---

Deductions
Description

Income Levy
Paye
Prsi-Ee
Survivorspension Post
Lump Sum Pension Post
Personal Pension Post
Pension Related Deduc

ixoy

I'm not quite sure what your point is EF? I could show my payslip and it wouldn't have any overtime mentioned either - I'm on time in lieu as would be a civil servant. It's also a bit irrelevant without some figures put in which you're - obviously - not going to provide (nor would I).

Can I ask how long your hours are per week? I was thinking that if they upped the standard hours from 35 to 37.5 (which would be more private sector standard from my experience), they would effectively get a couple more hundred civil servants a year without having to recruit anyone.

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what your point is EF? I could show my payslip and it wouldn't have any overtime mentioned either - I'm on time in lieu as would be a civil servant. It's also a bit irrelevant without some figures put in which you're - obviously - not going to provide (nor would I).

Can I ask how long your hours are per week? I was thinking that if they upped the standard hours from 35 to 37.5 (which would be more private sector standard from my experience), they would effectively get a couple more hundred civil servants a year without having to recruit anyone.

The basic point was that I am contributing to my pension, quite significantly now and that all deductions are mandatory.

Im on the standard 6.57 hours per day and I wouldn't have a problem with those hours going up. There aren't enough hours in the day for my workload.

otwb

Gurgle wrote: »

When rubbishing someone else's claims and throwing your own figures around, its traditional to link to some sources.

Allow me:-

http://www.tui.ie/Salary_Scales/Default.286.html

Tui website

K-9

How do the bonuses work out:

Eg.

ACADEMICQUALIFICATIONS

w.e.f. 1/9/08

1. (a) (i) H. Dip in Ed. (Pass) €622
(ii) Higher Froebel Cert. €622
(b) (i) H. Dip in Ed. (1st or 2nd Hons) €1,299
(ii) Árd Teastas Gaeilge €1,299
(c) Primary Degree (Pass) €1,939
(d) Masters Degree by thesis
or exam (Pass) €5,177
(e) Primary Degree (1st or 2nd Hons) €5,177
(f) Masters Degree (1st or 2nd Hons) €5,177
(g) Doctors Degree €6,463

Only one of the allowances at (a) or (b) may be held together with one of the allowances (c) to (g)



Would I be right in assuming nearly everybody would get 2 of these allowances?

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

Would I be right in assuming nearly everybody would get 2 of these allowances?

Yes, for post primary teachers. Many primary teachers will have only one of them. There might be some older primary teachers who have none of them.

E.T.

K-9 those are qualification allowances that you've listed.
Primary teachers claim one qualification allowance only eg if you do an M.Ed you receive the M.Ed allowance but not the B.Ed plus M.Ed. Most primary teachers who have qualified in the last ten years (it's actually a lot longer but I'm not sure what date the degree was brought in) have a degree, as well as 2 diplomas which are part of our training.

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, for post primary teachers. Many primary teachers will have only one of them. There might be some older primary teachers who have none of them.

Was thinking that, one degree would be a necessity now I'd say and many would have 2. Would be interesting to see breakdowns of the qualifications.

E.T. wrote: »

K-9 those are qualification allowances that you've listed.
Primary teachers claim one qualification allowance only eg if you do an M.Ed you receive the M.Ed allowance but not the B.Ed plus M.Ed. Most primary teachers who have qualified in the last ten years (it's actually a lot longer but I'm not sure what date the degree was brought in) have a degree, as well as 2 diplomas which are part of our training.

Grand, so really realistically, these allowances are part of basic pay.

I find this with Unions and Govts. when they post pay rates. Unions post the very basic rate, minus allowances etc.

Govts. of course deal in actual pay, including allowances obviously, because that is what they actually pay.

The Nurses strike a few years ago was an example of this.

gurramok

Here's the UK salary scales, look at the public sector ones and compare to the TUI website list.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=429176&in_page_id=2

:eek:

gurramok

And here's the OECD comparison. http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/09/17/story17337.asp

Here's more from 2006.
http://www.bankofscotland.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=119&nID=177&aID=254

An average salary of E51,187 for secondary teachers – sourced from Public sector employment and earnings Dec 2005 (CSO)
· An average salary of E42,834 for primary teachers – sourced from Public sector employment and earnings Dec 2005 (CSO)
· An average salary of E51,673 for Gardai - sourced from Public sector employment and earnings Dec 2005 (CSO)- note this excludes over-time.
· An average salary of E32,408 for nurses - sources from the Irish nurses Organisation - pay relates to a Staff Nurse at the fourth grading point
· An average salary of E34,307 for firefighters – sourced from the report of public sector benchmarking 2002 and uprated to 2005 using the average increase in local authority earnings up to Dec 2005.

Any more of the poor mouth?

dresden8

gurramok wrote: »

Here's the UK salary scales, look at the public sector ones and compare to the TUI website list.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=429176&in_page_id=2

:eek:

Look at the private sector ones too.

:eek:

TGPS

I'm a fairly senior manager in the public service.

What I would say is that there is a lot dead wood in the both the civil and public services of the country and what's needed is redundancy scheme and a redployment scheme.

I would also suggest that it needs to be a lot easier to demote or dismiss poor performers (including teachers and Guards).

Pay cuts are not the answer. If there is a hole in the public purse then rebalancing the tax system is the answer - broaden the tax base, increase tax rates and close off reliefs that are now irrelevant to the policy objectives of the government.

Spending needs to be curbed, which the redundancy scheme would take care of, but the key areas of Social Welfare, Health and Education need to be gone over with a fine comb - there are billions to be saved there.

TGPS
http://thisgruntledpublicservant.blogspot.com/

gurramok

dresden8 wrote: »

Look at the private sector ones too.

:eek:

Point being?

That the UK public sector is poorly paid compared to their private sector, an inverse of the situation here, funny that