Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
300 civil servants are paid more than €165,000 per year
Options
Comments
-
Of course but, in general, a PS/CS worker is a net loss to the government - they provide income tax, etc. but that's less than the amount of money the government spends on them. Now their remit isn't necessarily to provide profit but instead to provide a service but nonetheless it's a net financial loss for the large part (excepting those who do bring in revenue such as... Revenue).
The public service is a cost. To describe it as a loss is a distortion. The funding of healthcare, for example, is not a loss: people benefit from it.Private sector workers, on the other hand, are primarily a net gain as they bring in income tax, prsi, health levies, etc. Therefore we need them to make up the deficit provided by the public sector.
The public service does not "provide a deficit"; it provides services, and it costs money to provide those services.I imagine that's the point jimmy is trying to put across.
I don't think jimmmy needs interpreters.0 -
-
I know people at all levels in the public service, and they all - without exception - are not exactly stressed out compared to their private sector counterparts. Why would they be, with secure employment, better pensions, generally better pay, flexitime, plenty of days off ( more than most private sector people I know ) , plenty of tea + coffee breaks etc. No comparison.
I've worked with people across a number of areas in the public service. The majority of them are quite stressed and work above and beyond the call of duty in less than ideal conditions. I agree that there are some people who work the system - but this happens no matter what sector you work in.
Please stop tarring every public sector worker with the same brush - mabye its a reflection on you and those people you choose to befriend rather than the sector as a whole.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Nobody I know in the private sector is motivated by an ambition to earn money for the country; they generally want to earn money for themselves.
And no-one I know in the public service has serving the public as their primary concern (although some maintain they do and others are more honest about it ).They went in for the permanent position(aspired to get one anyway),the relatively superior wages compared to their opposing number in the private sector,the long holidays,the flexi-time or short working hours (especially women wanting to have a family), the fact that in some rural areas it is the only decent employer (unless they own the local shop/pub/hotel) and a pension that is unattainable to the average private sector worker and I am sure the satisfaction that being a guard or a nurse or a teacher or helping people as a civil servant can bring.
But noone gets into a public service job to primarily help others-they do it to suit themselves.Not that there is anything wrong with that we all do.But all we hear from public sector unions is how their primary concern is their patients/pupils etc. and its not.They dont mind working against their patients/pupils interests to protect their (somtimes selfish )own.Its the BS and hypcrisy I cant stand.
The only people I know that serve the public in their interest and not just to further their own would be people like Brother Kevin Crowley who runs the homeless shelter and people of that ilk and they are extremely rare.0 -
And no-one I know in the public service has serving the public as their primary concern (although some maintain they do and others are more honest about it ).They went in for the permanent position(aspired to get one anyway),the relatively superior wages compared to their opposing number in the private sector,the long holidays,the flexi-time or short working hours (especially women wanting to have a family), the fact that in some rural areas it is the only decent employer (unless they own the local shop/pub/hotel) and a pension that is unattainable to the average private sector worker and I am sure the satisfaction that being a guard or a nurse or a teacher or helping people as a civil servant can bring.
But noone gets into a public service job to primarily help others-they do it to suit themselves.Not that there is anything wrong with that we all do.But all we hear from public sector unions is how their primary concern is their patients/pupils etc. and its not.They dont mind working against their patients/pupils interests to protect their (somtimes selfish )own.Its the BS and hypcrisy I cant stand.
The only people I know that serve the public in their interest and not just to further their own would be people like Brother Kevin Crowley who runs the homeless shelter and people of that ilk and they are extremely rare.
I don't see why you felt that you had to respond to my post as you did. I was dealing with a suggestion that I considered nonsensical.
Of course people work primarily for their own benefit. But when I entered the public service many years ago, most of the incentives you listed did not exist -- no noticeable shortening of my working week (15 minutes, to be precise), no flexitime, lower pay expectations, about two days extra annual leave; yes, there was the pension scheme, but I was young and perhaps did not value it as much then as I do now. I bought into the public service ethos, and that was part of my decision-making process.
At various times over the years (there have been ups and downs) people entering the public service have accepted lower pay than they might have expected in the private sector.
In some cases, the public/private distinction is not really considered. If somebody wants to be a Gárda, there is only one road to follow.
I don't maintain that people enter the public service solely or mainly for altruistic reasons; neither do I accept that people work in the private sector for reasons of patriotism. Everybody is trying to make a living.0 -
Advertisement
-
Senior judges, Director of the DPP and secretaries generals - 250,000euros
Heads of the Enterprise Ireland, Forfas, the Central Bank, Financial Regulator and An Bord Pleanala - well in excess of 200,000euros
Aidan Browne head of Childrens Act Advisory Board - 150,442euros
John Clarke Irish National Stud Chief Executive - 115,000euros
Jim Ferguson Chief of the Advisory Council for english language schools 94,000euros
Phillip Flynn Digital Hub Boss - 184,179euros
John Tierney Dublin City manager - 292,461euros
Frank Ryan Head of Enterprise Ireland - 250,578euros
Geraldine Ruane of Ordnance Survey Ireland - 154,257euros
Fred Barry - National roads Authority - 250,000euros
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/300-public-servants-now-earn-euro165000-1715260.html0 -
The above should be read in conjunction with this:deadhead13 wrote: »Senior judges, Director of the DPP and secretaries generals - 250,000euros.....http://www.independent.ie/national-news/300-public-servants-now-earn-euro165000-1715260.htmlIreland's 100 richest worth €23bn
Sunday March 14 2004
EOGHAN WILLIAMS
THE 100 wealthiest Irish people's combined fortune is worth a massive proportion of all economic activity in the country.
The Sunday Independent 100 richest - from Michael O'Leary to Michael Flatley - are worth over €23bn, the equivalent of one fifth of Ireland's GDP.
By contrast, the 100 richest Americans, lead by Microsoft's Bill Gates, are valued at just one twentieth of all US economic activity.
The 10 richest people in Ireland are each sitting on an average fortune of €800m. The average industrial worker would have to bank his or her entire €27,000 salary every year for 30,000 years to amass the same wealth....0 -
I guess a thread titled 399,700 civil servants earn less than €150,000 wouldn't be that interesting then?:rolleyes:0
-
-
NewDubliner wrote: »The number of people employed in the civil service is 30,000.
The OP is incorrect. There are 300 PUBLIC servants who earn more than 165,000 pa. Thats out of 400,000.
More innacuracies and laziness in this debate from the off....0 -
Advertisement
-
Doesn't make sense to compare the top 100 of a small country with the top 100 of a much larger country. The top 100 of a country of 300 million, other things being equal, will own a smaller share of the wealth than the top 100 of a country of 4 million.NewDubliner wrote: »The above should be read in conjunction with this:Ireland's 100 richest worth €23bn
Sunday March 14 2004
[...]
The Sunday Independent 100 richest - from Michael O'Leary to Michael Flatley - are worth over €23bn, the equivalent of one fifth of Ireland's GDP.
By contrast, the 100 richest Americans, lead by Microsoft's Bill Gates, are valued at just one twentieth of all US economic activity.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »Doesn't make sense to compare the top 100 of a small country with the top 100 of a much larger country. The top 100 of a country of 300 million, other things being equal, will own a smaller share of the wealth than the top 100 of a country of 4 million.
Yet it does make sense to compare public sector pay across countries?0 -
anonymous_joe wrote: »Argh.
If you were earning the private sector equivalent of those civil servants you would not be fearing for your job unless you had run a company into the ground, because those people are at the top of the tree, and are not likely to lose their job.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike how the civil service is run, but the fair remuneration of the highest echelons is just insanity.
This comparison between private sector and public sector is a load of absolute rubbish! If you want a handy, "guaranteed-for-life-we-won't change-or-innovate-unless-you-pay-us more-go-ask-me-shop-steward" type job, then by all means go work in the public sector.
If you choose this career option, the job security that you will enjoy, the protection that you will enjoy by vested interests such as public sector unions, the hugely generous pension that you will enjoy upon your retirement, the relatively handy number that you will enjoy during your employment, all these BENEFITS, and that's what they are, should be reflected in modest salary.
On the other hand, if you want to earn 150K plus a year, you should have to stick your neck out for it, how do you feel about going down to the bank and putting your house on the line as security for a business loan??? How do you feel about working 18 hour days a couple of times a week??? How do you feel about being the last c*nt to get paid where you work???
This thing were people in the private sector, especially those that create employment, who risk their houses and everything that they own, are being "benchmarked" against people in the public sector who haven't done an honest days work in their life, makes me sick to be honest.0 -
Ixoy you have it all wrong when you say:-
Aren't you inadvertently admitting that public sector workers are being very well paid compared to private-sector workers by virtue of the fact they're paying more income tax?
heres why....
The CS/PS staff now have to pay two extra taxes on top of the taxes everyone else pays. Ill spell it out for you...... I work in the PS four years and I earn the princely sum of €27844 euro a year before tax which equates to €1067.26 per fortnight. on that I pay in taxes:
PAYE €55
PRSI €35 (soon to be more)
Income Levy € 11 (Soon to be 22)
Superannuation €38
Pension Levy €50
All these figures are forthnightly by the way!
I know this is my personal business but I just want to get this out there. The last two taxes are pension related, people in the private sector dont have to pay them. "Arent you lucky to have a pension I hear you say!" well maybe so but maybe not...consider this If I work for 40 years at my current payscale and never achieve promotion then I would retire on a pension of 18,000- 20,000 per year that isnt much when you take into account that the old age contributary pension is about 11,500 per year. Everyone is entitled to this by paying their PRSI so so am I. This means that I am paying almost 40 euro per week for forty years to achieve 6,000-8,000 or so extra per year. Also please bear in mind that the more you earn the more you pay. When you break it down like that its not so great for the money now is it?
When the media reported that public servants dont have to pay for their pensions they neglected to mention that Superannuation tax is already paid by CS/PS. After all of these deductions i come out with a grand amount of €430 per week. Trust me I work hard and so do most of the people in my department. If you look at all my deductions and take them as a percentage of my pay I am paying over 20% in taxes. Taking into account that I have a third level qualification which pertains to the work that I am doing now can you say that I am overpaid....I havent been able to afford a holiday in three years! I drive a 96 car and I live in a kip with no prospect of ever getting out of it! Do I feel lucky no!....And for the record you cant take flexi time if you havent worked it up either!
To sum it up...a friend of mine recently returned to work after a career break of a couple of years. He has around 9 years or so in the PS He is on the grand amount of 35,000 or thereabouts. His girlfried is working in the public sector on around 25,000 and her take home pay per month is more than his.....so ixoy do you still stand by your silly and misinformed comment?
This is a very very good post and I hope that a lot of people read it and take note of the contents. 40 euro a week will equate to approx 80,000 euro over the 40 years required to work to get a full pension.
When Suzyballs retires and if she was on this salary she would get a lump sum payment of around 42,000 euro (1.5 times salary) which would leave 38.000 to be used on the weekly pension payments. Suzyball would be entitled to a pension of 269 euro a week (half her salary). However approx 220 of that would be paid in the form of the state pension (which everybody who pays PRSI will get). That leave the princely sum of 49 euro a week extra for Suzyballs pension. Divide that 49 euro into the 38,000 and you get 775 weeks which equates to 15 years.0 -
Given the current state of the public finances these salaries need to be, and are as a matter of fact, reviewed. We will have to wait until july to see what action, if any, is taken0
-
This thing were people in the private sector, especially those that create employment, who risk their houses and everything that they own, are being "benchmarked" against people in the public sector who haven't done an honest days work in their life, makes me sick to be honest.
Well I hope that you are not sick enough to warrant a hospital visit because obviously those nurses and doctors who havnt done an honest days work in their life wont treat you will they?0 -
Yep - as I was basing it on someone else's post I'm well aware of the figures involved actually. You're also claiming that in 40 years you'd retire on 18-20k which would make the blatantly false assumption that your wage would never rise or that it would not rise subsequently after retirement.His girlfried is working in the public sector on around 25,000 and her take home pay per month is more than his.....so ixoy do you still stand by your silly and misinformed comment?
It's also predicated on the fact that the levy is permanent which we have no knowledge of yet. Some of those figures ignore the fact that you may have put money into the pension for years before the levy was in place which increases its benefit in relation to the pension.
Semantics. I openly admitted they provided services and important ones at that (as well as less important one). That doesn't change the fact that in a cold harsh analysis they're a net financial loss (even if the less transparent angle is that there's a long-term gain from better health, education, etc.).The public service is a cost. To describe it as a loss is a distortion. The funding of healthcare, for example, is not a loss: people benefit from it.
It's not their business to provide profit either so I'm not condemning it in principle, just wondering about its effectiveness and value-for-money.0 -
Darragh 29 your last paragraph was riduculous and offensive to say the least.
So if your house ever goes on fire tell this to the overpaid fireman who is a public servant who has never done an honest days work in his life who risks his life to save your child and the overpaid paramedic who tends to your child on the way to hospital keeping them alive so that the the lazy overpaid nurse can care for your child during their stay in hospital and the waste of space doctor who studied for 7 years or more and save their life....tell all these people what you really think of them and their cushy public service numbers! All of these people deserve their pay AND YOUR RESPECT ALSO.
So the real heroes here are the entrepreneurs are they? So it all comes down to business and money does it...we should have learned after the greed of the last ten years. Anyone can set up a limited company and not risk their home and anyone who doesnt do this is a fool!
Don't give me that sh*t. I'm talking about OVERPAID wasters in the public sector being paid 150K plus and expenses and the rest of it for scratching their arses for years, being benchmarked against the hardest working people in the private sector who risked their houses and everything to start up a business. I'm not talking about Public Sector workers who actually work for their money. I'm talking about the highly paid saps wandering around government buildings and other public sector havens like government departments who do nothing but organise meetings and press events, some of them don't even know what their job is, they have no real job title or position, some of them are leftovers from the old health board system that nobody in government knows what to do with, because they can't be fired or made redundant, so they are just lost in a public sector wilderness, paid only Jasus knows what a year until they retire and are flushed out of the system.0 -
This comparison between private sector and public sector is a load of absolute rubbish! If you want a handy, "guaranteed-for-life-we-won't change-or-innovate-unless-you-pay-us more-go-ask-me-shop-steward" type job, then by all means go work in the public sector.
If you choose this career option, the job security that you will enjoy, the protection that you will enjoy by vested interests such as public sector unions, the hugely generous pension that you will enjoy upon your retirement, the relatively handy number that you will enjoy during your employment, all these BENEFITS, and that's what they are, should be reflected in modest salary.
On the other hand, if you want to earn 150K plus a year, you should have to stick your neck out for it, how do you feel about going down to the bank and putting your house on the line as security for a business loan??? How do you feel about working 18 hour days a couple of times a week??? How do you feel about being the last c*nt to get paid where you work???
This thing were people in the private sector, especially those that create employment, who risk their houses and everything that they own, are being "benchmarked" against people in the public sector who haven't done an honest days work in their life, makes me sick to be honest.
god help you when an ambulance man reads this post then turns up at a car crash with you needing attention, will you turn down the services of an overpaid Public Servant then??????????????????0 -
Semantics. I openly admitted they provided services and important ones at that (as well as less important one). That doesn't change the fact that in a cold harsh analysis they're a net financial loss (even if the less transparent angle is that there's a long-term gain from better health, education, etc.).
It's not their business to provide profit either so I'm not condemning it in principle, just wondering about its effectiveness and value-for-money.
Semantics, is it? Wanting to use the correct term, which does not have negative connotations, is more than semantics. I'm challenging the loaded vocabulary that some people are choosing to use here.0 -
Advertisement
-
The main idea is to compare the 300 most highly paid public-sector employees with the three hundred most highly-paid in the private sector.SkepticOne wrote: »Doesn't make sense to compare the top 100 of a small country with the top 100 of a much larger country. The top 100 of a country of 300 million, other things being equal, will own a smaller share of the wealth than the top 100 of a country of 4 million.0 -
It makes sense to compare public (or private) sector pay across countries it just needs to be done on a like-for-like basis.OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Yet it does make sense to compare public sector pay across countries?0 -
Don't give me that sh*t. I'm talking about OVERPAID wasters in the public sector being paid 150K plus and expenses and the rest of it for scratching their arses for years, being benchmarked against the hardest working people in the private sector who risked their houses and everything to start up a business. I'm not talking about Public Sector workers who actually work for their money. I'm talking about the highly paid saps wandering around government buildings and other public sector havens like government departments who do nothing but organise meetings and press events, some of them don't even know what their job is, they have no real job title or position, some of them are leftovers from the old health board system that nobody in government knows what to do with, because they can't be fired or made redundant, so they are just lost in a public sector wilderness, paid only Jasus knows what a year until they retire and are flushed out of the system.
If you don't want people to give you sh*t, then it would be better if you didn't give us your brand of sh*t. That includes repeated use of pejorative language.
You are inventing ogres, and it is increasingly obvious that you don't know much about what people do in the public service.0 -
Well I hope that you are not sick enough to warrant a hospital visit because obviously those nurses and doctors who havnt done an honest days work in their life wont treat you will they?
If I work my arse off for 10-15 years and risk my house and everything in the process, I'm entitled to pay myself whatever I want a year without having some public sector worker hanging onto my leg screaming and roaring about benchmarking!
If you want to earn 150K a year, you shouldn't be able to get it by being a mate of Bertie and getting appointed to a state board on the same basis! I accept like we all do, that we need efficient public sector employees, I accept that we need gardai, nurses, doctors and judges for the orderly and smooth operation of our society. We need front line public services and we need some degree of management of those services by people who don't work on the front line. But we've lost the plot completely on this front, we have hundreds if not thousands of people in the system who are lost in a public sector wilderness because they refuse to move due to relocation or they are left over from the old health board system and due to their contract or whatever, they cannot be touched...0 -
Yep - as I was basing it on someone else's post I'm well aware of the figures involved actually. You're also claiming that in 40 years you'd retire on 18-20k which would make the blatantly false assumption that your wage would never rise or that it would not rise subsequently after retirement.
It's also predicated on the fact that the levy is permanent which we have no knowledge of yet. Some of those figures ignore the fact that you may have put money into the pension for years before the levy was in place which increases its benefit in relation to the pension.
Semantics. I openly admitted they provided services and important ones at that (as well as less important one). That doesn't change the fact that in a cold harsh analysis they're a net financial loss (even if the less transparent angle is that there's a long-term gain from better health, education, etc.).
It's not their business to provide profit either so I'm not condemning it in principle, just wondering about its effectiveness and value-for-money.
Ixoy they changed the law to bring in the levy I dont think they will be undoing it anytime soon do you?!
Plenty of good decent hard working people never achieve promotions in the public service because the competition is so severe...the world and its mother are trying to get them. The average person would study for maybe a week for their interview. It all hinges on that 45 minutes and if u **** it up you may well wait another 3 or 4 years for your chance. It doesnt matter how good of a worker you are. In forty years both the average public sector and private sector wages will have gone up and yes I should hope that i will be on a higher payscale in forty years time but if im not I can assure you that most people in the private sector will be still paid much much more than me....ps...my friends laugh at my wage packet even now! as they know the ****e that i have to put up with in work to get it. Trust me you would run out the door saying "how much per week? to do what? your havin a laugh!"0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »If you don't want people to give you sh*t, then it would be better if you didn't give us your brand of sh*t. That includes repeated use of pejorative language.
You are inventing ogres, and it is increasingly obvious that you don't know much about what people do in the public service.
I'm inventing nothing. There is a gap of grand canyon proportions between the payment of public sector workers and the payment of private sector workers for positions of comparable effort.0 -
Ixoy they changed the law to bring in the levy I dont think they will be undoing it anytime soon do you?!
Plenty of good decent hard working people never achieve promotions in the public service because the competition is so severe...the world and its mother are trying to get them. The average person would study for maybe a week for their interview. It all hinges on that 45 minutes and if u **** it up you may well wait another 3 or 4 years for your chance. It doesnt matter how good of a worker you are. In forty years both the average public sector and private sector wages will have gone up and yes I should hope that i will be on a higher payscale in forty years time but if im not I can assure you that most people in the private sector will be still paid much much more than me....ps...my friends laugh at my wage packet even now! as they know the ****e that i have to put up with in work to get it. Trust me you would run out the door saying "how much per week? to do what? your havin a laugh!"
So if you have ability and it is not being recognised by your employer, what on earth are you doing staying there in the job???0 -
I'm inventing nothing. There is a gap of grand canyon proportions between the payment of public sector workers and the payment of private sector workers for positions of comparable effort.
Ah, Jaysus, no. I recognise that most people in the private sector also work hard for their money.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
NewDubliner wrote: »Lack of pension portability?
Well I wouldn't be wasting my whole working life in an unhappy employment so that I can spend the autumn of my life with few extra quid! I couldn't "do" that situation that you are stuck in, but that's me.0
Advertisement