Will the government ever grasp the nettle of public sector pay ?

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

According to IBEC. We know that nearly 40% do not pay tax(before budgets) and that level was a salary of about 18kpa.

Anyway, we have had that most public sector workers possess higher qualifications so that would rule out minimum wage earnings?

Why would average services sector wages would be closer to the Public Sector average?

IBEC and Revenue would be counting part time workers, many of whom would not get 18k per annum.

I actually had the stats on finfacts about it. I'll search later if I remember. Services would include financial services and banking.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't see that in the page cited.

I do see this peach:

So the other half earned more than the median. That's what medians are about, isn't it?

Noticed that myself, but is that not referring to the whole survey, not just public service?

jimmmy

gurramok wrote: »

Here's one http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/Irish_2/article_1014651_printer.shtml

They make it out to be 32k in 2006 for the private sector.

Thought you might have realised it was much lower than the public sector as you will not find many Min wage workers in the public sector considering they form nearly 40% of the workforce.

+1

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

You are comparing certain sectors to the Public Sector.

Interestingly, only 5.2% were on minimum wage.
http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/personel/nationalpayagreement.htm

Average services sector wages would be closer to the Public Sector average.

jimmmy wrote: »

+1

Interesting that you don't +1 the above link!


Anyway:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006612.shtml

Employment in services has increased 21 percent since 2000, compared to an average G7 rise of 6 percent. Now, almost seven of every 10 people work in this expanding sector.

Industry isn't the major part of our economy anymore.

grahamo

The public sector pay statistics are skewed by the top earners. Found this in an issue of the irish times a couple of months ago.

"There are 357,175 people working in the public sector
112,000 work in the health service, 34 per cent of whom are nurses
Among administrative staff in the health service, salaries begin at €24,407 (clerical officer) and go to €194,264 (director of national hospital)
Education, with 92,480 employees is the second biggest public-sector area
One-tenth of the public sector is employed in the civil service
The salary of a newly-enlisted army private is €13,403 "

ixoy

grahamo wrote: »

The public sector pay statistics are skewed by the top earners. Found this in an issue of the irish times a couple of months ago.

"There are 357,175 people working in the public sector
112,000 work in the health service, 34 per cent of whom are nurses
Among administrative staff in the health service, salaries begin at €24,407 (clerical officer) and go to €194,264 (director of national hospital)
Education, with 92,480 employees is the second biggest public-sector area
One-tenth of the public sector is employed in the civil service
The salary of a newly-enlisted army private is €13,403 "

That doesn't really show though how many are at each level - then we could have a better stab at approximating mean wages.

P. Breathnach

ixoy wrote: »

That doesn't really show though how many are at each level - then we could have a better stab at approximating mean wages.

The Irish Times piece that grahamo mentioned was fairly comprehensive (albeit with some gaps that I found irritating). I meant to keep it, but it seems that it made its own way into the recycling bin. Perhaps somebody can find it online.

Dr Galen

jimmmy wrote: »

The average pay in the private sector, as you well know, is considerably less ( @ about 31 k ) than in the public sector ( 966 p.w or roughly 50 k per year ). Its no surprise that many of the people I know with BMW and who drink cocktails are public servants, hospital workers etc....this despite public sector accounting for only a seventh of the workforce. Go in to any business which sells luxury items over the last 6 months, and if the owner knows his business and customers / does his research ( even if just on a sample batch of customers ) , he will find most of the deliveries / big sales are to people from "guess which " sector !




Some are finding it a lot tougher than others, not having the same pay, security and pensions.

hold on a minute.....I'm agreeing with you and your still pulling me up? Whats the story with that?

I'm against sterotyping of any colour. It's unfair to say that every private sector worker has been creaming during the boom years. Isn't that what I said?

Likewise it's also unfair to say that every public sector worker is a lazy good for nothing.

Balance......

grahamo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The Irish Times piece that grahamo mentioned was fairly comprehensive (albeit with some gaps that I found irritating). I meant to keep it, but it seems that it made its own way into the recycling bin. Perhaps somebody can find it online.

found it here. interesting reading!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0115/1231738224028.html

jimmmy

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

It's unfair to say that every private sector worker has been creaming during the boom years.

True. I know graduates with 10 years experience working hard in American multinationals here in Ireland for the early thirties salarywise....their counterparts in the public service are on much more, plus the perks are much better in the public service ( flexitime, security, working week, pension, pressure etc )
What the American multinational can be done cheaper abroad....just as UK teachers are paid much less than teachers in Ireland for example.

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Isn't that what I said?

Yes, I clarified it.

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Likewise it's also unfair to say that every public sector worker is a lazy good for nothing.

Nobody said that. I know many people in the public service who are good people.

Dr Galen

ok then Jimmmy then we're on the same page. Maybe I read or took you up wrong.

No harm done

irish_bob

BroomBurner wrote: »

Look, you can't compare the average private sector pay with the average public sector pay.

In the privcate sector, you have thousands of people earning on, or around, minimum wage as they're doing minimum wage type jobs, like working in shops, part-timers, etc. If you're looking at averages, you have to take out all the students and general folk that work part-time first.

In the public sector, it is just sooooo varied. You have areas that require proper qualififcations (teachers, doctors, nurses) and you have areas that require entry exams only (clerical officers). These entry exams aren't always the easiest either, you need only read the pages in the Work and Jobs section on trying to get in to any public service to know how hard it is.

What everyone needs to do is compare like for like. Stop using averages, it is a base tool for base individuals. Instead, for real comparisons, you need to compare individual sectors:

• IT private sector empoyee - graduate level, 5 years experience and 10+ years experience in both sectors
• Nursing - private hospitals versus public hospitals, also looking at grad level and various years of experience
• Admin staff - clerical officers versus general admin staff, lookin gat entry level and various years of experience

The list goes on...

so in other european countries , why is it the norm for public sector wages to be on average , lower than thier private sector counterparts

is it simply a case of us having it right ?

Hillel

irish_bob wrote: »

so in other european countries , why is it the norm for public sector wages to be on average , lower than thier private sector counterparts

is it simply a case of us having it right ?

More a case of Bertie getting it wrong. His policy was appeasment at all costs.
Ultimately, that cost could be all our childrens future! :mad:

K-9

Hillel wrote: »

More a case of Bertie getting it wrong. His policy was appeasment at all costs.
Ultimately, that cost could be all our childrens future! :mad:

YEP, We are paying for the pay deals and benchmarking Now, even in the bad times, each and every single year, same as the wage rise to pay for them paying the same PRSI as anybody else .

The Pension levy was the usual ham fisted attempt by our Govt. to address things like that, should have been done years ago.

NewDubliner

K-9 wrote: »

YEP, We are paying for the pay deals and benchmarking

We're also paying for the bad investment decisions of bankers, pension fund managers and property spculators..

jimmmy

irish_bob wrote: »

so in other european countries , why is it the norm for public sector wages to be on average , lower than thier private sector counterparts

is it simply a case of us having it right ?

Can anyone answer this.

Remember 2003....was the government not doing ok then in the provision of services etc ? Why did it increase public expenditure from 36 billion that year to 63 billion this year, and increasing ? That has had dire consequences for everyone not paid by the government.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Remember 2003....was the government not doing ok then in the provision of services etc ? Why did it increase public expenditure from 36 billion that year to 63 billion this year, and increasing ?

To pay for higher social welfare benefits, increased aid to the third world, increased demand for public services, the 'decentralisation' scam, and to compensate civil servants for increased living costs brought on by the private sector charging more for goods and services so as to fund their pensions and property speculation activities?

jimmmy wrote: »

That has had dire consequences for everyone not paid by the government.

Not true. Much of the money found its way back into the private sector. For example, we're paying rent on unnecessary rural office buildings staffed by people hired to do work already being done in Dublin. For example too, through overpriced housing.

The private sector has done rather well out of public spending projects. It then invested the profits unwisely & is now looking for you and me to give it more money to cover its losses.

gurramok

NewDubliner wrote: »

To pay for higher social welfare benefits, increased aid to the third world, increased demand for public services, the 'decentralisation' scam, and to compensate civil servants for increased living costs brought on by the private sector charging more for goods and services so as to fund their pensions and property speculation activities?

Ah yes, the public sector never took part in property speculation at all. Guess they never bought houses driving up prices at the detriment of the worse off. Carol O'Byrne comes to mind with that investment property in Croatia.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Not true. Much of the money found its way back into the private sector. For example, we're paying rent on unnecessary rural office buildings staffed by people hired to do work already being done in Dublin. For example too, through overpriced housing. .

Blame your employer for waste of money there.

NewDubliner

gurramok wrote: »

Ah yes, the public sector never took part in property speculation at all.

Not in the same scale as the private sector did.

gurramok wrote: »

Blame your employer for waste of money there.

The government threw money at the private sector and the public sector. A few oligarchs got rich, many odrinary joes got stiffed.

ParkRunner

jimmmy wrote: »

Can anyone answer this.

Remember 2003....was the government not doing ok then in the provision of services etc ? Why did it increase public expenditure from 36 billion that year to 63 billion this year, and increasing ? That has had dire consequences for everyone not paid by the government.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2009/bl081append2.pdf

Expenditure needs to be cut, practically everyone agrees on this. And from what can be seen above, some effort at least is being made to cut expenditure. The stand out figure for me is the increase of 21% from the end of 2008 estimate in social welfare expenditure. We need jobs!

gurramok

NewDubliner wrote: »

Not in the same scale as the private sector did.

Define scale?

I'm talking about public sector employees who also engaged in buying houses pushing up the prices. They too along with the ordinary private sector joe soaps were guilty at the lap hands of FF and developers.

Both are equally culpable.

The government threw money at the private sector and the public sector. A few oligarchs got rich, many odrinary joes got stiffed

Yes, thats true. We all who engaged in this activity have to take blame of what happened, its a pity the vast majority did not listen pre2006 but greed got in their way.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

Not true. Much of the money found its way back into the private sector. For example, we're paying rent on unnecessary rural office buildings staffed by people hired to do work already being done in Dublin.

Given public expenditure has increased from 36 billion in 2003 ( not that long ago ) to 63 billion this year , how much of that 27 billion increase has gone on " rent on unnecessary rural office buildings " ? Why are the politicians and government people who made poor decisions not penalised instead of handsomely rewarded ?

ardmacha

This thread is based on the premise that in general public sector salaries and working conditions far exceed those in the private sector. Now of course this ignores evidence of people leaving teaching and nursing etc to move yo the private sector.

But the elephant in the room is this, if public sector jobs were so great than the well informed, the well connected, those who came top of their class, those who got high points, those who went to good schools, all of these people would have been aiming for work in the public sector rather than the private sector. The public sector pay and conditions are public knowledge, it is not as if people didn't know about it.

There is no evidence of these high rollers aiming for the public sector, with the possible exception of medicine the things they aimed for were in the private sector, lawyers accountants etc. Medicine does seem highly paid here, but there is a substantial private component here too, even better paid.

Dr Galen

because we voted them back in, er let them off the hook.

and we will again. FF will try to hold off on a general election for as long as it can, hoping things get better and then they'll buy/lie their way back in

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

We're also paying for the bad investment decisions of bankers, pension fund managers and property spculators..

Indeed. Nobody was complaining when taxes and profits was rolling in.

jimmmy wrote: »

Can anyone answer this.

Remember 2003....was the government not doing ok then in the provision of services etc ? Why did it increase public expenditure from 36 billion that year to 63 billion this year, and increasing ? That has had dire consequences for everyone not paid by the government.

Well everybody was complaining about Health, Schools, Roads etc. Basically they took windfall taxes (property) and spent them as if they always would be there.

NewDubliner wrote: »

To pay for higher social welfare benefits, increased aid to the third world, increased demand for public services, the 'decentralisation' scam, and to compensate civil servants for increased living costs brought on by the private sector charging more for goods and services so as to fund their pensions and property speculation activities?


Not true. Much of the money found its way back into the private sector. For example, we're paying rent on unnecessary rural office buildings staffed by people hired to do work already being done in Dublin. For example too, through overpriced housing.

The private sector has done rather well out of public spending projects. It then invested the profits unwisely & is now looking for you and me to give it more money to cover its losses.

Yep, the public sector pay bill didn't too bad either. The two biggest areas of expenditure are Public Sector pay and SW. All the increases that were given from all the windfall taxes still have to be paid. Reckless spending.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Not in the same scale as the private sector did.

The government threw money at the private sector and the public sector. A few oligarchs got rich, many odrinary joes got stiffed.

Definitely and that should be remembered. Joe Soap is stuck with overpriced property being paid over 35/40 years in many cases.

EF wrote: »

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2009/bl081append2.pdf

Expenditure needs to be cut, practically everyone agrees on this. And from what can be seen above, some effort at least is being made to cut expenditure. The stand out figure for me is the increase of 21% from the end of 2008 estimate in social welfare expenditure. We need jobs!

Amazingly, for the first month or 2 of the year spending was more or less stable. They have made small cuts in SW like reducing Jobseekeers benefit to 9 months and scrapping the Back to Work Allowance, but bigger cuts need to be made.

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, thats true. We all who engaged in this activity have to take blame of what happened, its a pity the vast majority did not listen pre2006 but greed got in their way.

Even in 06, anybody who spoke of a property crash was laughed at. People really where brainwashed.

ardmacha wrote: »

This thread is based on the premise that in general public sector salaries and working conditions far exceed those in the private sector. Now of course this ignores evidence of people leaving teaching and nursing etc to move yo the private sector.

But the elephant in the room is this, if public sector jobs were so great than the well informed, the well connected, those who came top of their class, those who got high points, those who went to good schools, all of these people would have been aiming for work in the public sector rather than the private sector. The public sector pay and conditions are public knowledge, it is not as if people didn't know about it.

There is no evidence of these high rollers aiming for the public sector, with the possible exception of medicine the things they aimed for were in the private sector, lawyers accountants etc. Medicine does seem highly paid here, but there is a substantial private component here too, even better paid.

But Ardmacha it has been pointed by people from the Public Sector how well qualified Public Sector employees are. Also the numbers have significantly increased in the last 10 years, so it always was an attractive sector, even in the boom times. I'm sure certain areas had problems attracting employees, but generally, it still had no problems attracting employees.

ardmacha

But Ardmacha it has been pointed by people from the Public Sector how well qualified Public Sector employees are. Also the numbers have significantly increased in the last 10 years, so it always was an attractive sector, even in the boom times. I'm sure certain areas had problems attracting employees, but generally, it still had no problems attracting employees.

Indeed sectors such as hospitals, education etc will employ more graduates, and even today graduates are not a majority. The question is not whether the public sector was able to fill its vacancies, although some sectors had problems. If public sector salaries were as far out of line as some posters claim then people would have been queuing up for PS jobs, and there is no evidence that this was the case. Most likely the truth is that most were similar to other sectors, some a bit more, even some a bit less.

There is a bigger issue about mismanagement which meant that structures in place prevented getting value from the people in these jobs.

NewDubliner

gurramok wrote: »

Define scale?

Not many public-sector people among the Anglo 10, I think.

The scale I refer to is not in the number of people involved but in the monetary volume of speculation.

ixoy

ardmacha wrote: »

If public sector salaries were as far out of line as some posters claim then people would have been queuing up for PS jobs, and there is no evidence that this was the case. Most likely the truth is that most were similar to other sectors, some a bit more, even some a bit less.

Most likely. I think the real issue is that they seem unwilling to have those salaries re-adjusted now when they were perfectly willing to have that done in the "good times". If it were a private company, that'd be okay but this unwillingness by many in the PS/CS to reform is at the cost of everyone in the form of taxes, etc.

There is a bigger issue about mismanagement which meant that structures in place prevented getting value from the people in these jobs.

Quite true - the blame for that lying with both the government and the unions.

NewDubliner

ixoy wrote: »

Most likely. I think the real issue is that they seem unwilling to have those salaries re-adjusted now when they were perfectly willing to have that done in the "good times".

Living costs would have to come down too. If you're going to deflate, it has to happen in all sectors at the same time.

otwb

gurramok wrote: »

Blame your employer for waste of money there.

Not the governments fault....the electorate voted them in....share the blame people.

ixoy

NewDubliner wrote: »

Living costs would have to come down too. If you're going to deflate, it has to happen in all sectors at the same time.

The trouble is that wages are coming down first in (elements of) the private sector and costs are coming down (we are in a period of deflation). That this is not being really taken into account obviously creates resentment, especially since wages are being lowered in many places which lowers tax take and that in turn could cause even higher taxes, etc. A vicious cycle indeed and one "easy" way to offset this is to lower public spending.

Having said all that, if the government were to take a hatchet approach and cut 10% off all PS/CS wages (rather than a more measured approach which would take longer) we'd still only save about 2.5bn which isn't still nearly enough. Something far more substantial needs to be done but how to go about that (and decide what that even is) is going to be a right headache.