300 civil servants are paid more than €165,000 per year

stepbar

Change has to come from the top and what I mean by that is by the people who are actually in charge (and I don't mean the politicans). Goverment will come and go but the real change has to come from the individuals who run each and every dept. Seriously how many of the highly paid Civil Servants are under the age of 50? or even under the age of 40? They have no incentive to change. FFS a lot of them are 5 years away from early retirement!!!

On another point, shared services is the only way forward for to create real efficencies in the Civil Service. For me it's the starting point. There is no joined thinking in the Civil Service (bar perhaps the PAS). Why is there a need for seperate HR/payroll functions in different depts for example? The Civil Service needs to model the private sector approach, otherwise you may as well be p1ssing into the wind (but shur haven't people been saying this for years anyhow).

Darragh29

suzyball wrote: »

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???


I hear ya...but i worked in the private sector for 9 years and I lost my job along with a decent living in 2005 at the height of the boom. I had to start again at an almost 50% paycut. Ive never been a gambler so i decided to take the safe bet. It has nothing to do with a pension I can assure you it has more to do with the fact that im single and im paying a mortgage and I have to keep the roof above my head! I never want to have to go through loosing a job through no fault of my own again. And no the company that let me go did not go out of business at all in fact they sold the site our job was located on at an astronomical profit because the boom meant that they could make more money from selling the site than they ever could from the business they ran.

So now, would you not have done the same?

I walked out of a seriously well paid and highly secure job back in 2005. I hated the politics of the place that meant that the more of a useless lick ar*e you were, the faster you were promoted. If you you were a grafter as I was, you went absolutely nowhere.

Above all else, if I had to sleep in a field at night, I wasn't going to allow a company to turn me from a hardworking passionate person into a cynical hanger-on, so I made my decision and I communicated it and I got on with my life. I started up a business that subsequently failed, so I immediately started up another business that was successful. Then I started up another few businesses and built on my experience...

You are born with talent and natural abilities and a lot of companies operating in this country would gladly suck that out of you. I wasn't going to let that happen to me any cost so I dealt with negative workplace situations accordingly.

DapperGent

ixoy wrote: »

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.

In fairness that also ignores the fact that these pension deductions should be (at least notionally) invested at the time of their payment and allowed to grow over the ensuing years. It's not really a public servant's fault that pension deductions are tossed into the general tax pool and that payments come out of it rather than being properly invested and ringfenced.

It's also predicated on the fact that the levy is permanent which we have no knowledge of yet.

I think it's pretty reasonable to take it's permanance for granted.

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.

True enough. One of my main irritations with the pension levy (as a public servant) was that it left untouched retired people and those soon to be retired, a more equitable (though less government spin friendly) pay cut would have adjusted both public pay and public pensions.

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.).

I'm not sure this is objectively true. A country without a functioning public service is impossible to do business in, the various branches which provide education, the rule of law, healthcare etc. etc. are economically necessary entities as no one would bother investing in the country if they weren't present. I think to call money spent on the judiciary (just for example) a financial loss is retarded to be honest, saying that some people with in it are overpaid or the system itself is inefficient is fine and something I'd agree with. These things are systemically necessary to a functioning society without which economic activity would be catastrophically stifled.

ixoy

suzyball wrote: »

Ixoy they changed the law to bring in the levy I dont think they will be undoing it anytime soon do you?!

No probably not. My own point though was say you joined in '97 - you've had then 12 years of contributing without a pension levy and that's a good deal. How good it is sans levy is something I must try and calculate, taking into account wage increases (i.e. you pay very little in '97 compared to what you'll end up on retirement in 2037).

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.

Interesting that you say it doesn't matter how good of a worker you are - do you believe that the positions aren't always given to the best staff? Or that everyone's good?
FWIW, I was quite surprised how long some people I work with took to get to EO level because, IMO, they were very good. Equally I'm surprised at some who are at EO level before them (years ago maybe), so I wonder if perseverance pays off?

As to the original topic - I know of one civil servant who falls into this category. I don't know them personally but by reputation and the effect they have on the workplace around me. In my opinion they're actually very talented and have a very good working knowledge of their area and yeah, they quite probably deserve their wage over 150k.

I'm not sure this is objectively true. A country without a functioning public service is impossible to do business in, the various branches which provide education, the rule of law, healthcare etc. etc. are economically necessary entities as no one would bother investing in the country if they weren't present. I think to call money spent on the judiciary (just for example) a financial loss is retarded to be honest, saying that some people with in it are overpaid or the system itself is inefficient is fine and something I'd agree with. These things are systemically necessary to a functioning society without which economic activity would be catastrophically stifled.

Appreciated. There's an almost symbiotic relationship between private and public sectors - the private sector may generate the cold hard cash, but it's only with the means, infrastructure, and systems put in place and supported by the public. It's easy to put a figure on private sector value, such as income tax returns in November. It's less easy to place such a figure on the public sector as the value added is less tangible but no less valuable (if you get me). Or at least in theory it's no less valuable - the value is something we're trying to assess.

stepbar

That's not exactly a great example, Solicitor vs a Lawyer?

Darragh29

suzyball wrote: »

So after 10 years service a public sector solicitor will only earn 68,656 whilst in the public sector they could get 100,000! I can get more examples if ya like....but maybe tomorrow im done for the night

Well say if you happened to be a solicitor in 2009 specialising in convenacing, where would you rather be right now???

ixoy

suzyball wrote: »

Read my post I said i have four years service...it must be someone else your mixing me up with!

I wasn't referring to you specifically - it was a general you!

Darragh29

suzyball wrote: »

Ixoy you say -Interesting that you say it doesn't matter how good of a worker you are - do you believe that the positions aren't always given to the best staff?

I sure do...I have seen it in action! but the majority are hard working and concientious as are the people in the private sector. What are we to do ! we have to carry the deadwood as well as do our own work....were victims of the system too!

I wouldn't agree with this at all, but having said that, the place I worked in a few years ago was particularly corrupt. If you are working somewhere and due to the set up where you work, you cannot operate to the very best of your ability, then my view is that you need to get outa there. Anything less will end up sapping your drive and making you cynical.

suzyball

That's not exactly a great example, Solicitor vs a Lawyer?

A solictor and a Lawyer are exactly the same. Perhaps you are confusing this with a barrister. This is a completely different career path!

A Solicitor can work for a firm but a barrister must work for themselves!

P. Breathnach

Darragh29 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with this at all, but having said that, the place I worked in a few years ago was particularly corrupt. If you are working somewhere and due to the set up where you work, you cannot operate to the very best of your ability, then my view is that you need to get outa there. Anything less will end up sapping your drive and making you cynical.

Yes, it is best not to become cynical.

gnxx

I would expect pay to be at least €165,000 for a CEO / director of a large company.

I'd guess that for this money a private company would expect results and would terminate the employment pretty quickly if this wasn't happening.

stepbar

gnxx wrote: »

I would expect pay to be at least €165,000 for a CEO / director of a large company.

I'd guess that for this money a private company would expect results and would terminate the employment pretty quickly if this wasn't happening.

Indeed they would. The problem is that gov services have never been really profit orientated. That's the major problem facing this country at the moment.

P. Breathnach

stepbar wrote: »

... The problem is that gov services have never been really profit orientated. That's the major problem facing this country at the moment.

How might the state provide policing at a profit? Or roads? Or education? Or old age pensions?

gnxx

I wouldn't expect that departments are run in profit.

Run efficiently with a reasonable budget would be a great starting point though.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How might the state provide policing at a profit? Or roads? Or education? Or old age pensions?

stepbar

Lots of ways. Do we really need county council workers for example? Is there not an argument for services such as road sweeping etc being tendered out (they are already are but not in the way I would like to see). No one disagrees that essential services such as education, health have services cut. There is plenty of scope for real reform. The public sector (with the right supervision ) have the capabilities to provide replacement services. Why can't the gov outsource non essential services such as payroll for example? Do we really need dedicated offices for processing applications (such as the process of applying for dole etc). Is there not an argument for allowing companies such as Abtran - http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0417/abtran.html tender for more work from gov agencies?

Darragh29

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, it is best not to become cynical.

I think you need to take a reality check for yourself. You seem to have long forgotten who is picking up the tab for the public sector gravy train that your bent on defending on here. All I expect is value for money, is it a big ask now in all seriousness???

Darragh29

stepbar wrote: »

Is there not an argument for services such as road sweeping etc being tendered out (they are already are but not in the way I would like to see).

Tender it out to the Prison Service. The same people who are wrecking communities should be made clean them up by way of a court order.

gnxx

Would you really trust government to award these types of contracts? I would like to see government and the managment of the public service outsourced

stepbar wrote: »

Lots of ways. Do we really need county council workers for example? Is there not an argument for services such as road sweeping etc being tendered out (they are already are but not in the way I would like to see). No one disagrees that essential services such as education, health have services cut. There is plenty of scope for real reform. The public sector (with the right supervision ) have the capabilities to provide replacement services. Why can't the gov outsource non essential services such as payroll for example? Do we really need dedicated offices for processing applications (such as the process of applying for dole etc). Is there not an argument for allowing companies such as Abtran - http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0417/abtran.html tender for more work from gov agencies?

stepbar

suzyball wrote: »

That's not exactly a great example, Solicitor vs a Lawyer?

A solictor and a Lawyer are exactly the same. Perhaps you are confusing this with a barrister. This is a completely different career path!

A Solicitor can work for a firm but a barrister must work for themselves!

They're not "exactly" the same thing. Please don't insult your own intelligence and mine by suggesting otherwise.

stepbar

gnxx wrote: »

Would you really trust government to award these types of contracts? I would like to see government and the managment of the public service outsourced

I would only begin to trust the Gov to do such a job if we started to vote in people who weren't part of a political dynasty or the like. The Gov are "supposed" to represent the common good of the nation. To date they have failed miserably.

drunkdaz

NewDubliner wrote: »

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.

Why?

There is no correlation here.

Not in terms of numbers employed, type of work, etc......... or more importantly risk.

Typical union trash.

K-9

suzyball wrote: »

You would think so with all the media hype but heres an example:-

taken from a civil service circular dated August 2008:

STATE SOLICITOR AND PROSECUTION SOLICITOR

² €33,706 €36,770 €40,677 €43,664 €46,636 €49,629 €52,612 €55,577 €66,179 €68,656 €71,132 €73,609 €76,087 €77,520 €80,016 82,520

now compare that to a similar private sector job advertised today:

Corporate Lawyer


Ref. no.: BDU45655wsd
Tags:
Location(s): Dublin City Centre
Salary range (€): 100000 - or more
Additional benefits:
Minimum experience required: 10 - and more..
Employment type: Permanent Full-time
Minimum qualification: Professional Qualification
Contact person: Legal Team
Contact e-mail: legal@hrm.ie


So after 10 years service a public sector solicitor will only earn 68,656 whilst in the public sector they could get 100,000! I can get more examples if ya like....but maybe tomorrow im done for the night

stepbar wrote: »

They're not "exactly" the same thing. Please don't insult your own intelligence and mine by suggesting otherwise.

That isn't the same.

I thought part of the problem is you can't compare or benchmark public and private sector jobs?

I do notice the blank beside additional benefits though!

No pension contributions mentioned eg. So the private sector solicitor will have to deduct maybe 20/25% of his gross wage to get the pension equivalent in the public sector.

NewDubliner

drunkdaz wrote: »

Why?
There is no correlation here.
Not in terms of numbers employed, type of work, etc......... or more importantly risk.

The 'shock horror' story in the Indo lacked correlation too.

But I'd agree with you, there's far less less risk involved in being an oligarch than in being on the payroll of a state that could change your T&C's at any time.

jimmmy

Darragh29 wrote: »

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.

Well said, and its what I believe most of the silent majority ( the 1,800,000 private sector workers ) would agree with.

ixoy

I wouldn't be too quick to claim all private sector enterprenuers are performing all honest day's work - they've produced some of the biggest scams and screw-overs in the industry (think of the financial sector).

Broadly though there is a point - bench-marking takes pension values into account (allegedly), but does it also take in the notion of security and ideas like less working hours? How are these factor played?

P. Breathnach

Darragh29 wrote: »

I think you need to take a reality check for yourself. You seem to have long forgotten who is picking up the tab for the public sector gravy train that your bent on defending on here. All I expect is value for money, is it a big ask now in all seriousness???

I would hope that before commenting on what my position is, you would have read what I have had to say, but it seems that you have not. I do not try to justify all public service pay rates, nor do I suggest that all public service jobs should be maintained, nor do I claim that every public service employee is performing well. And it is ill-mannered to suggest that I don't understand the basics of public finance.

I have read many of your posts on the public service in this and other threads (Lord knows, there is no shortage of them). It is disingenuous to summarise your position as being that all you are expecting is value for money. You have repeatedly attacked the public service, often using intemperate language, and your attacks have generally not been nuanced to suggest that they are intended to apply only to a subset who are underperforming or overpaid: they are more like swinging an axe where a scalpel is required. Even in a post where you say that all you want is value for money, you use the loaded expression "public sector gravy train" without any qualification, implying that everybody in the public sector is on the gravy train.

I hear echoes of Animal Farm: "private sector good, public sector bad".

P. Breathnach

ixoy wrote: »

... Broadly though there is a point - bench-marking takes pension values into account (allegedly), but does it also take in the notion of security and ideas like less working hours? How are these factor played?

My memory may be faulty on this: I think it was in the second benchmarking report that it was said that pension values and job security were taken into the reckoning. There was some disagreement on how much value should be attached to them.

Given what has happened since:
- the value of PS pensions has become greater relative to private sector pensions because of the problems experienced by private sector pension funds;
- the job security enjoyed by some PS employees is more valuable than it might have seemed a few years ago (but it should be noted that not all PS employees have job security, and many have lost, or are about to lose, their jobs).

jimmmy

ixoy wrote: »

I wouldn't be too quick to claim all private sector enterprenuers are performing all honest day's work - they've produced some of the biggest scams and screw-overs in the industry (think of the financial sector).

Of course not all 1,800,000 people in the private sector are the same or have the same productivity or ethics. As regards the financial sector, I think was happened there should have been regulated by the financial regulator / central bank / govt. Very few people in the financial sector , in all fairness, did anything illegial. The financial regulator / central bank / govt have a lot to answer for....and they got well paid + pensioned for their "screw-over"

Fergus08

P. Breathnach. Your posts have been a tonic. Calm, rational, facts based, nuanced, fairminded, respectful etc, etc, etc,. The contrast with the, frankly unhinged, public sector bashers here is enormous. Nobody who works in the PS will ever claim that it is perfect. But its imperfections pale into insignificance when compared with where the private sector of this country has dragged us. The related union bashing sentiment is just pure silly (I won't use stronger, but more accurate terms) lazy thinking. Somewhere the unions bashers have picked up the Thatcherite cliché that the unions ruined Britain in the 70s; ergo, they're doing the same here. The union leadership, to their eternal detriment, have been a beacon of rational thinking in the current crisis and have a real sense of responsibility. If we'd have four or five years of general strikes and industrial disruption then the union bashing might have some slight justification. But the union leadership will do anything to avoid strikes - at local, firm level and the national level. So, all the union bashing on this and other threads in the Politics forum is based on anti-union prejudice, not on an accurate assessment of the role the unions have played in bringing about the current crisis.

And, one more thing, anyone who is concerned about 300 public servants being paid 165K but is not more concerned and agitated that the IMF reckon that it will cost us 24 billion (possibly more) to bail out the banks, is not someone who has a serious grasp of currents. Moreover, the taxpayer (disproportionately consisting of public sector workers) has been lumped with a mess created entirely by private businesses in the form of NAMA. That is infinitely more important than public sector pay - which at least will keep spending going for a few years.

Finally, for all those 'entrepreneurs' who 'risk' everything to set up businesses: well it's a reasonably free country, they're not forced to. They do so on the implicit understanding that they could possibly, though statistically unlikely, strike it very rich with their business. More likely, they'll have to work hard for a reasonable-to-good lifestyle. If their businesses fail or are under pressure it's pathetic that some of them starting attacking the public sector. No-one is forced to become an entrepreneur; it's a choice; if someone who makes that choice fails, that's THEIR problem, not the public sector's - take some personal responsibility. Self-pity and whinging are extremely unattractive features - yet they seem to me to typify the so-called 'entrepreneurs' who post here.

Riskymove

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Yet it does make sense to compare public sector pay across countries?

would you like pay rates in the private sector to be based on those in other countries too?