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

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

It would tell us that people in top jobs are well paid. It's not about benchmarking, it's about context.

Actually it would tell us they are all overpaid. BOI and AIB CEO's would be in the top 300, so much for comparing! It's a joke.

It's the PUBLIC Service. Look Benchmarking is dead, it's finished, twas a disaster. If you want to compare, compare against Public Services in similar sized countries, ala the latest report on politicians pay. The public service is not the private service, it never will be, so stop comparing the top 10/100/300 list or whatever. Compare like for like.

You cannot and shouldn't compare the two. That is what got us into this Public Sector pay mess.

NewDubliner wrote:

One can simply observe the bias in the coverage,the past history of the newspaper's owners and the demands it makes of government. These are matters of fact. Why do you think they published the article and why do you think it deliberately lacked balance?

OK, forget their bias, forget my bias, forget your bias.

Did they report facts in that article or not?

newdubliner wrote:

Yes, the selective use of facts and the lack of context.

Reporting the top 300 salaries in the Public Service in a piece about the top 300 salaries in the Public Service is not biased. That is not selective use of facts or lack of context.

K-9

the indo wrote:

The pay probe reveals senior judges, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the secretaries general of government departments all earn in the region of €250,000.

Enterprise Ireland boss Frank Ryan earned €250,578 in 2008, an increase of €20,635.
Dublin City manager John Tierney earned €202,461 last year, up €9,726 on his 2007 salary.

The heads of Enterprise Ireland, Forfas, the Central Bank, Financial Regulator and An Bord Pleanala also earn salaries well in excess of €200,000.
Other big earners include:

* Aidan Browne, head of the Children's Acts Advisory Board, which advises Government on caring for children in detention and care and welfare issues, earns €150,442.
* Irish National Stud chief executive John Clarke took home €115,000.
* Jim Ferguson, the chief of the Advisory Council for English Language Schools, earned almost €94,000.
* Digital Hub boss Philip Flynn was awarded a €23,975 bonus in 2007. He also receives a €12,000 per year car allowance on top of his €184,179 salary.

The vast majority of senior civil servants surveyed earn well in excess of €100,000 -- or almost three times the average industrial wage.

How much does Obama earn?



Also from the article:

the Indo wrote:

Spiralling executive salaries have also angered lower paid civil servants.

The Civil Public and Services Union (CPSU) recently criticised what they claimed was a 93pc increase in the salaries of government secretaries general since 2000.

Stop defending the indefensible.

Using Private sector excesses to defend public sector excesses is Soooooo last year.

NewDubliner

Have you noticed that the title of this thread misquotes the title of the original article?

K-9 wrote: »

Reporting the top 300 salaries in the Public Service in a piece about the top 300 salaries in the Public Service is not biased. That is not selective use of facts or lack of context.

:rolleyes: Why was the title of the article not ".1% of the public service earns more than €165,000/year?"

Why did they publish the article?

BornToKill

http://www.village.ie/Society/Inequality/No_banker_deserves_fifty_times_the_income_of_a_nurse/

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

Have you noticed that the title of this thread misquotes the title of the original article?

:rolleyes: Why was the title of the article not ".1% of the public service earns more than €165,000/year?"

Why did they publish the article?

Because the article isn't about the whole Public Service, as you seem to think it is, it's about the top 300. That is the talking point. You could use the .1% but it still leaves 300 Civil Servants on over €165,000!

Politicians wages are rightly compared to other countries and will be benchmarked against similar sized countries so maybe they should have included pay rates for the top 300 in other countries?

The title of the thread and the OP wasn't referring to the article, it was referring to a radio piece IIRC.

Are the top 300 Civil Servants paid over €165,000 or not?

Why did they publish it? God knows, but personally, I think it's a matter for public discussion. People getting paid €200/250,000 in the Public Service is important.

Maybe they should have picked €500,000 and said nobody in the Public Sector gets paid over 500k, or 0% get over that.

NewDubliner

K-9 wrote: »

Are the top 300 Civil Servants paid over €165,000 or not?

I don't think so. The examples given mostly included people who are not civil servants. Very few civil servants have such a high pay scale.

K-9 wrote: »

Why did they publish it? God knows

To advance the business interests of the paper's owners? It is a private sector company after all.

Was the radio item triggered by the newspaper article?

Who planted the story?

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

I don't think so.

Over 300 civil servants do actually get paid over 165,000 per year. This is excluding hospital consultants etc.

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Over 300 civil servants do actually get paid over 165,000 per year. This is excluding hospital consultants etc.

Source?

jimmmy

Irish Independent, RTE........or maybe you can ask some of your comrades in the extremely efficient C.S.O. ?

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

I don't think so. The examples given mostly included people who are not civil servants. Very few civil servants have such a high pay scale.

To advance the business interests of the paper's owners? It is a private sector company after all.

Was the radio item triggered by the newspaper article?

Who planted the story?

Typo, public servants.

You seem a tad paranoid New Dubliner.

Even if it's total spin or a NWO Conspiracy, the figures are publicly available and of public interest.

I mean, what's the problem with printing them?

It sounds like you have an agenda New Dubliner, what is it?

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

Irish Independent, RTE........or maybe you can ask some of your comrades in the extremely efficient C.S.O. ?

The indo article stated 300 Public Servants. What is the source of your claim that it's 300 Civil Servants.?

k-9 wrote:

I mean, what's the problem with printing them?

None.

k-9 wrote:

It sounds like you have an agenda New Dubliner, what is it?

Truth, accurate facts, balanced reporting, declaration of vested interests, transparency.

Darragh29

If anyone was still under any illusions about the ATM that was the benchmarking process, just have a read of this!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/union-admits-working-the-system-on-pay-1719729.html

dustbabe

K-9 wrote: »

"Nope, it pays for the highering current pension bill, about 11/12% of current Public service pay. "

sorry you are wrong, the 6.5 we pay currently covers almost all of our pensions for those at the minute, apparently the government has to put in another 1% or so. But the levy is never going into cover a pension, its for running the country.



"I take it you have figures to back this up on Eircom? I'd well believe Eircom and the ESB get this, Unions huh! How many times on average you get called out?"

It was a friends husband, so no did not see pay check, but his on call was unreal. There i was running around with a shooting on the table...

This is why benchmarking annoys me. It failed nurses, but lined the pockets of others. Such a wasted opportunity to do good.



Ah, but is it a fair wage for a 22/23 yr old nurse?

a qualified nurse now starts on 30,000, 10 yrs ago at 26 i was on 16000 punts. so its hard to say but i woul think that a nurse on year 5 pay would still be struggling. I was not top of staffnurse scale when i could not afford to balance my books, but was workning and studying at same time.
Sorry for the mess do not know how to do the quote bit!

dustbabe

http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/consultants-get-836430000-rise-as-hse-plans-cuts-1719740.html

If you read this you will see the most highly paid are to get this pay rise if they have signed on for this contract. And at a time when we do not have enough staff etc.... beggars belief. The worst part is we are all sittin here on boards instead of demanding answers from our local politicians. And they want to cut 700 nurses jobs, which will honesly decimate our crap system.

I am thrilled that bertie will soon lose that pension he got before he hit 65, and i think those who got any pension before official retiring age should hand it back, if they had any decency. But i forget who i am talking about here, politicians and decency? Never in the same sentence.
And lastly only 12 politicians have taken that pay cut they promised us. Yet mine was mandatory.
Vote these idiots out, and enough of the " the other crowd are idiots" america needed a change, england needs a change of government too. I am sick of everyone saying there is not option, the only good thing is that fianna fail cannot blame the opposition for this mess. They took all the claps on the back for creating the tiger, but hey presto every time cowen opens hhis mouth, its a world disaster not seen in 7 decades. Thank god that happened brian or where would you be now!!

NewDubliner

Darragh29 wrote: »

If anyone was still under any illusions about the ATM that was the benchmarking process, just have a read of this!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/union-admits-working-the-system-on-pay-1719729.html

It's in the Indo.:rolleyes:

ixoy

NewDubliner wrote: »

It's in the Indo.:rolleyes:

Whilst I'll readily admit it's a rubbish paper, what's wrong with the information in it? I know they spin it in their pretty amusing vendetta against the PS/CS but could you elaborate on what's incorrect in it?

NewDubliner

ixoy wrote: »

Whilst I'll readily admit it's a rubbish paper, what's wrong with the information in it? I know they spin it in their pretty amusing vendetta against the PS/CS but could you elaborate on what's incorrect in it?

As you say above. It's the spin and the selective quoting.

P. Breathnach

NewDubliner wrote: »

As you say above. It's the spin and the selective quoting.

And the headline that is not really supported by the story.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

Truth, accurate facts, balanced reporting, declaration of vested interests, transparency.

You seem to have a problem with the Indo, in fairness, I do too.

Don't see anything untruthful, vested or non transparent in that article. I wouldn't say it is particularly well wrote, but that's the Indo, not necessarily unbalanced.

Maybe you can point out any of these things in the article?

K-9

dustbabe wrote: »

"Nope, it pays for the highering current pension bill, about 11/12% of current Public service pay. "

sorry you are wrong, the 6.5 we pay currently covers almost all of our pensions for those at the minute, apparently the government has to put in another 1% or so. But the levy is never going into cover a pension, its for running the country.

I suppose the way I'm looking at it, current pensions paid cost 11/12% of the Public Service pay bill. Most Public Servants would be paying around that by way of the pension levy and deductions, not counting PRSI.

I do agree it is for running the country, i.e. paying current pensions!

NewDubliner

K-9 wrote: »

Don't see anything untruthful, vested or non transparent in that article. I wouldn't say it is particularly well wrote, but that's the Indo, not necessarily unbalanced. Maybe you can point out any of these things in the article?

That's the nature of spin. To tell a lie without being untruthful.

We'll have to wait for the full text of the PSEU speech to see what the Indo decided not to report and if the headline is an appropriate summary of the thrust of the speech.

K-9

I'm referring to this one:

300 public servants now earn €165,000



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/300-public-servants-now-earn-euro165000-1715260.html


Don't like the other one just referred too. I mean, the cheek of Unions looking for good pay deals.

NewDubliner

K-9 wrote: »

I'm referring to this one:
300 public servants now earn €165,000

The answer is the same. It's not what is said. It's what's left out that can turn some basicly correct facts into a work of spin. We've already discussed context and valid comparisons, all of which we both agree are absent from the article.

As regards motive, an issue I find to be very interesting when reading anything, I guess you think the Indo acts in the public interest whereas as I believe they act in the interests of their owners.

If we're to increases our competitiveness, costs in both the public and private sector charges must come down together or the result will be inequitable.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

The answer is the same. It's not what is said. It's what's left out that can turn some basicly correct facts into a work of spin. We've already discussed context and valid comparisons, all of which we both agree are absent from the article.

Yep, if the top 300 private sector salaries are relevant, so is the top 300 public servants salaries in comparable countries. Benchmarking with other public servants in a way.

NewDubliner wrote:

As regards motive, an issue I find to be very interesting when reading anything, I guess you think the Indo acts in the public interest whereas as I believe they act in the interests of their owners.

Bit of a stretch there. Even if your belief is true, it does not mean everything printed in it is unbalanced, out of context, inaccurrate or serving a vested interest.

Fortunately, I will be applying the same standards to any PSEU speech. Unfortunately their track record is of acting in the interests of it's members, not the country or economy, as is their right.

So, it appears we'll have 2 pieces, both unbalanced, both acting for vested interests, inaccurate, untruthful and non transparent!

NewDubliner wrote:

If we're to increases our competitiveness, costs in both the public and private sector charges must come down together or the result will be inequitable.

Overall costs need to come down for sure, which will hopefully help towards more profits and tax revenues for the state and the state needs to cut costs to just survive at the minute!

NewDubliner

K-9 wrote: »

of a stretch there. Even if your belief is true, it does not mean everything printed in it is unbalanced, out of context, inaccurrate or serving a vested interest.

But, it's a good idea to consider this possibility, especially given the Indo's woeful journalistic standards. When something appears in the media, always ask yourself: 'Who wrote it?', 'Who paid them to write it?', 'Why is it appearing now?' and 'Why did they write it?' and 'What is missing?'.

K-9 wrote: »

Fortunately, I will be applying the same standards to any PSEU speech.

At least the PSEU is clear about who they represent and where they get the money from.

K-9 wrote: »

So, it appears we'll have 2 pieces, both unbalanced, both acting for vested interests, inaccurate, untruthful and non transparent!

And the truth is somewhere in between. You need to draw a vector from as many sources as you can and triangulate it. But to do this accurately, you need to know the true position of each publication.

K-9 wrote: »

Overall costs need to come down for sure, which will hopefully help towards more profits and tax revenues for the state and the state needs to cut costs to just survive at the minute!

I'm told that Dept Finance has issued a circular stating that all IT projects costing more than €10,000 (anywhere) have to be approved by them.

K-9

NewDubliner wrote: »

But, it's a good idea to consider this possibility, especially given the Indo's woeful journalistic standards. When something appears in the media, always ask yourself: 'Who wrote it?', 'Who paid them to write it?', 'Why is it appearing now?' and 'Why did they write it?' and 'What is missing?'.

Your preaching to the converted there.

Look, I have no more major problem with the article by itself, as a stand alone piece. I look at it in that context.

Not to worry, I'll also be applying the same standards to the PSEU.

NewDubliner wrote:

At least the PSEU is clear about who they represent and where they get the money from.

Good for them. Still, a vested interest.

NewDubliner wrote:

And the truth is somewhere in between.
You need to draw a vector from as many sources as you can and triangulate it. But to do this accurately, you need to know the true position of each publication.

There we agree.

Thing is, often the most biased and the biggest vested interest is the reader.

NewDubliner

K-9 wrote: »

Thing is, often the most biased and the biggest vested interest is the reader.

Everything is relative.

jimmmy

NewDubliner wrote: »

As regards motive, an issue I find to be very interesting when reading anything, I guess you think the Indo acts in the public interest whereas as I believe they act in the interests of their owners.

You do not think the Indo like other papers are soft ( well....softer than they should be...as you say everything is relative ) in their criticism of public service expenditure because so many of the population / readership are from the public sector ?

SkepticOne

NewDubliner wrote: »

If we're to increases our competitiveness, costs in both the public and private sector charges must come down together or the result will be inequitable.

Don't understand your reasoning here. The public sector wages need to be at such a level to retain public sector staff and no higher. Given the current decimation of the private sector, you could probably lower wages in the public sector considerably and still retain staff. Doing so would help reduce the tax burden on the private sector and help with economic recovery.

Ultimately it is in the interests of the public sector to have a strong private sector. Unfortunately the government is too weak to make the necessary changes and it will probably fall to the IMF to do it for us.

Fighting Irish

joolsveer wrote: »

Anybody being paid this amount or more should be named!

:rolleyes: