"Public servants to receive pay hikes worth €250m"

Conor OH!

exactly. our government isnt thinking outside the box at all. did you know that there are 25 million text messages sent EVERY DAY in ireland? if they were to put a 1c levy on text messages, that would mean they could earn €250,000 DAILY to contribute to this mess they've put us in. that's just one idea... and to me, it seems a lot more humanitarian than just straight away jumping on the "blame the public sector" attitude. we NEED the public sector. it all comes down to jealousy that people have in the private sector, now that THEY have f**ed everything up for everyone and need someone to blame. as they say, it's always easier to blame someone else.

kippy

ednwireland wrote: »

FOR THE LAST TIME

all the money that pays your wages which the gets taxed comes from the private sector.
the real point is the gov has a current gap in income of about 30-35 billion, to what its spending YET it insists on paying increments, if our company doesnt have the money tp pay the wages we dont get it or wait as i had to last m onth because one of the directors wasn't here to do a fund transfer between accounts

Do you not think that people deserve to get paid for their work? Do u suggest that I should work for nothing?
I am fully aware of where my wages come from. Are you aware where yours come from and who spends the money on the goods and services you provide?

You're blaming the public service for one of your directors not beirng there to do a funds transfer.....I thought you guys in the private sector were hyper efficient? Doesnt seem to efficient to me.......

I aint saying that the increments shouldnt be stopped, NOWHERE have I said that. I can do maths and know how to read so I know the position the country is in.
WHAT I AM DOING is trying to highlight a few SERIOUS misconceptions about taxation, pensions and private versus public sector jobs.

I've worked in both sectors long enough to know their ups and downs.

Lu Tze

TheCityManager wrote: »

Ah yes another PS bashing thread....

PS workers may indeed have job security and a pension when they retire but these two benefits do not pay the bills NOW..reducing pay packets affect all equally....we are all in this together...

Let me give you an example which all shoudl consider before further PS bashing...

Quite a few years ago I was friends with two lads, one a plumber one a carpenter...both working in the private sector for contractors

The plumber (let's call him Tom..) decided to apply for and take a plumbing job with a local authority (for job security etc..) Now the carpenter (let's call him Brian..) laughed and sneered at Tom endlessly as Tom accepted a modest wage (in return for his job security..)
Brian got caught up in the celtic Tiger, earning vast sums, buying jeeps, buying beer for all, going on exotic holidays...no such high living for Tom who got by on his average wage...

Eventually the recession landed, Brian lost his job, along with his high lifestyle, jeeps and houses.. Tom continued on in his public sector job, his salary further reduced by pension levies etc.

Now that Brian can no longer find work his continually points the finger now at Tom, slags him and his colleagues off and calls for Tom to take further pay cuts .......

But......the moral of the story?
We all make choices in life ..Tom chose the secure average paid employment in the PS whilst Brian decided on 'taking a chance' on the lavish lifestyle of the celtic tiger...

Brian could have joined the PS but chose not to and instead earned a vast salary for years....

How unfair is it now for Brian to turn on Tom?
Brian made his choice..he should shut up and put up....:mad:

I have no problem with people who chose to join PS, however this story is laughable. This may have actually happened, but is obviously the extreme case. I came out of college during the boom years as an engineer. Was offered jobs in PS and private, went private despite it paying €4000 less a year.

This myth of the public sector having terrible wages while the private sector swam in their pools of money is constantly repeated. However its hogwash when you do like for like comparison.

kippy

Conor OH! wrote: »

exactly. our government isnt thinking outside the box at all. did you know that there are 25 million text messages sent EVERY DAY in ireland? if they were to put a 1c levy on text messages, that would mean they could earn €250,000 DAILY to contribute to this mess they've put us in. that's just one idea... and to me, it seems a lot more humanitarian than just straight away jumping on the "blame the public sector" attitude. we NEED the public sector. it all comes down to jealousy that people have in the private sector, now that THEY have f**ed everything up for everyone and need someone to blame. as they say, it's always easier to blame someone else.

Now, thats not entirely fair either.
There are huge areas of waste in the Public Sector and huge areas where efficiencies could and should be gotten. You know and I know this.
The amount of money the Public sector spend on private sector consultants and reports is alone a disgrace. Why pay Public sector people to do jobs when no one wants to take responsibility for doing these reports and consultations themselves? the lack of centralised Payroll, IT, HR, Building and equipment and knowledge sharing, centralised procurement.......all add to expense of running the sector.

We do need the Public sector, but an efficient, streamlined, value for money one, whose employees are paid on merit and achievement and who are accountable for their actions.
We do NOT need a public sector in the mess it is in at the moment.
Its not just private sector who have ****ed it up, a better government and regulator would have saved some of this pain, which at the end of the day are both public sector roles.

Kippy

Sleepy

Fergus08 wrote: »

And this is going to be funded how? Each 1000 people on the dole costs the state around 10 million annually. That's another 1.7 billion that the government has to find.

That's a funny way of looking at things...

Average public sector pay is around 46k (http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/WWIndividualArticle.aspx?ForumTypeID=2333). For purposes of easy comparison we'll ignore the fact that it costs an employer more than just the cost of the gross salary and round down to a fairly conservative average take-home pay of 30k (i.e. the net cost of hiring that person after accounting for the fact a portion of salary paid out is returned to the exchequer in PAYE/PRSI/Levies etc)

Amount saved by laying off 170,000 PS Workers: €5,100,000,000
Cost of their dole (using your figures): €1,700,000,000

Net saving to the exchequer 3.4 billion.

I'm not necessarily advocating getting rid of 170,000 PS workers (I'd be for an accross the board 10% wage deduction - if this is deemed unfair due to collective bargaining sacrifice the lazy gits and leave it be performance based in order to meet the same total saving), just calling your argument illogical.

techdiver

stevoman wrote: »

entry level pay for a clerical officer as of now is €24397 annually.

Which is fair, in fact generous based on skill level of an entry level CO in the Civil Service. Some qualified 3rd level graduates in business, IT, etc earn less than that at entry level.

Sleepy

techdiver wrote: »

Which is fair, in fact generous based on skill level of an entry level CO in the Civil Service. Some qualified 3rd level graduates in business, IT, etc earn less than that at entry level.

What does that €24397 come to when pension benefits are taken into account? Sounds more than generous for someone in an entry-level admin position to me...

stevoman

techdiver wrote: »

Some qualified 3rd level graduates in business, IT, etc earn less than that at entry level.

Can you please show me the link or proof you have to back up that staement?

Lu Tze

We would, if there was anywhere advertising work for those graduates anymore!

Fergus08

Sleepy wrote: »

That's a funny way of looking at things...

Average public sector pay is around 46k (http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/WWIndividualArticle.aspx?ForumTypeID=2333). For purposes of easy comparison we'll ignore the fact that it costs an employer more than just the cost of the gross salary and round down to a fairly conservative average take-home pay of 30k (i.e. the net cost of hiring that person after accounting for the fact a portion of salary paid out is returned to the exchequer in PAYE/PRSI/Levies etc)

Amount saved by laying off 170,000 PS Workers: €5,100,000,000
Cost of their dole (using your figures): €1,700,000,000

Net saving to the exchequer 3.4 billion.

I'm not necessarily advocating getting rid of 170,000 PS workers (I'd be for an accross the board 10% wage deduction - if this is deemed unfair due to collective bargaining sacrifice the lazy gits and leave it be performance based in order to meet the same total saving), just calling your argument illogical.

Nothing illogical about it at all. Yes, the Exchequer would 'save' 3.4 billion if the option you canvass above is taken. But you don't address, wisely in my view, the unquantifable costs of having close to 800,000 people on the dole with no chance of getting off it, but with families to support, ambitions, dreams, no viable place to emigrate to etc, etc, Assuming that all of these are going to just take the medicine with no socio-political backlash is untenable, to say the least.

Regarding performance based pay. I think this is an area where the public sector bashers should be very wary. From my experience of the public sector if you were truly to pay the majority of public servants based on their performance you'd have salaries zooming upwards. Hundreds of thousands of public servants - yes, there are tens of thousands of useless dossers - put in huge amounts of effort, because they love their job and the contribution it makes to society, that can't be adequately recognised within the fair but rigid pay structures that pertain in the public service.

Advocating performance related pay is NOT going to reduce public sector pay. Rather, it would, if it was implemented fairly, increase the salaries of most public servants substantially.

And, by the way, public servants have taken a pay cut already.

stevoman

Lu Tze wrote: »

We would, if there was anywhere advertising work for those graduates anymore!

i dont see them advertising for civil servants posts either. and who's we?

ixoy

Is there any chance we can stop a few things in all these threads? Such as:

1) All public sector workers are lazy
2) Public sector workers are leeches and contribute nothing
3) Private sector workers only caused this mess
4) All private sector workers did great in the Celtic Tiger
5) "We never saw the Celtic Tiger"
6) "Why should we pay for the banks"

All of these are gross generalisations (mostly not true) and ruin any sort of debate.

Advocating performance related pay is NOT going to reduce public sector pay. Rather, it would, if it was implemented fairly, increase the salaries of most public servants substantially.

No it wouldn't as you'd do what's done elsewhere - namely apply a bell-curve model for performance. Sure it's difficult to guage at times but it's how it's approached in many companies.

astrofool

Fergus08 wrote: »

Sacking half of the public sevice will satisfy the atavism of the public sector bashers, no doubt. But I'm certain that it will be cold comfort amid the riots and general chaos that will result from the sort of IMF intervention astrofool desires.

The worst possible option is for the IMF to have to come in, it means that the country is completely bankrupt and is unable to get loans to pay for it's day to day expenses. That is why the Public sector size has to be reduced, either by losing heads, or losing wage, either way it has to happen, or the worst possible option, the IMF coming in, will happen.

It's funny now to see the same people come into thread after thread with the first line "Another PS bashing thread...". Did you ever think why? Why when the country has no money left and is bailing out the banks to try and keep some sort of credit line alive for businesses (whose tax receipts pay for the PS), that people would comment on the fact that the PS was still giving itself increments as if tax receipts hadn't been affected?

Lu Tze

stevoman wrote: »

i dont see them advertising for civil servants posts either. and who's we?

Your original question wasn't directed at me, so i stuck with "we", as a collective for those of us who would have produced Graduate Job adverts if they were available. All i can offer otherwise is anecdotal, in that 3 years ago the science grads i know who finished with top marks were starting on €26,000, that was the highest i heard. Though admitedly she got a week bonus if she hit her higher treshold target for the year so you can factor that in too.

jmayo

Fergus08 wrote: »

Who says the government hasn't got the cash? ...

I didn't bother reading any further :rolleyes:
Have you checked out the Exchequer returns lately :rolleyes:

Conor OH! wrote: »

LOOK: the private sector got us ALL into this mess, so p!ss off if you think you can rely on hard-working under-appreciated public sector staff to bail you out. its not our fault that you had to trade in your 2009 BMW's for less ridiculous cars, or that you cant go on 8 holidays a year anymore, tough crap. its the way it is, and the private sector started it. mainly banks. so leave the public sector workers alone.

Yeah you know what you are dead right.
Actually you know what you should get an increase.
Even if we have to borrow more and increase taxes then it shoudl be done.
Afterall, it is all the fault of all us private sector workers driving BMWs, going on 8 holidays a year and having pensions of 27 million.
We started it all.
The public sector, even those fine employees in the Regulatos office, the planning offices, the Central Bank, the Dept of Finance and our politicans were led astray by us in the private sector.

I am glad your excellent synopsis of the situation has shown me the error of my ways.
If you don't mind I will now slink off to try and sell my other BMW M5 and cancel the trip to Barbados.
Once again I am ever so sorry for upsetting such a hard working and put upon public sector worker such as yourself.
We in the private sector have such a lot to learn from you.

Maybe I should go back to high infants again :rolleyes:

ednwireland

kippy wrote: »

Do you not think that people deserve to get paid for their work? Do u suggest that I should work for nothing?
I am fully aware of where my wages come from. Are you aware where yours come from and who spends the money on the goods and services you provide?

You're blaming the public service for one of your directors not beirng there to do a funds transfer.....I thought you guys in the private sector were hyper efficient? Doesnt seem to efficient to me.......

I aint saying that the increments shouldnt be stopped, NOWHERE have I said that. I can do maths and know how to read so I know the position the country is in.
WHAT I AM DOING is trying to highlight a few SERIOUS misconceptions about taxation, pensions and private versus public sector jobs.

I've worked in both sectors long enough to know their ups and downs.

sorry that came across wrong i was trying to point the money wasn't there to the pay the wages so we had to wait nothing to do with the public sector.

i work in a SME of 10 people part of the business does online marketing for hotels, the other part writes software for our customers which manages their gas servicing business (all in the UK), all my work (as far as possible ) has to be charged i spend every day doing timesheets, i see the invoices going out, talk on a daily basis to the people who pay my wages, i am acutely aware that if i dont do something or annoy customer it could affect our bottom line.

and no i'm not suggesting you work for nothing and i appreciate there are many many people in the public sector that work hard and deliver a good service i make a point of thanking them if they have helped me , but there is a huge hole in the public exchequer finances that cannot be covered by just raising taxes. so how do we square the circle ?

techdiver

stevoman wrote: »

Can you please show me the link or proof you have to back up that staement?

Graduate level Software Engineer in the place where I work would be no more than €24000 - €26000.

Conor OH!

Jmayo...you're a sap.

Sleepy

Fergus08 wrote: »

Nothing illogical about it at all. Yes, the Exchequer would 'save' 3.4 billion if the option you canvass above is taken. But you don't address, wisely in my view, the unquantifable costs of having close to 800,000 people on the dole with no chance of getting off it, but with families to support, ambitions, dreams, no viable place to emigrate to etc, etc, Assuming that all of these are going to just take the medicine with no socio-political backlash is untenable, to say the least.

So redundancies should be limited to the private sector only? Like I said in my first post, I wasn't advocating firing 170,000 people just pointing out that your argument that letting that number of people go would cost the exchequer billions was nonsense.

Regarding performance based pay. I think this is an area where the public sector bashers should be very wary. From my experience of the public sector if you were truly to pay the majority of public servants based on their performance you'd have salaries zooming upwards. Hundreds of thousands of public servants - yes, there are tens of thousands of useless dossers - put in huge amounts of effort, because they love their job and the contribution it makes to society, that can't be adequately recognised within the fair but rigid pay structures that pertain in the public service.

Advocating performance related pay is NOT going to reduce public sector pay. Rather, it would, if it was implemented fairly, increase the salaries of most public servants substantially.

Again, that's a nonsense of an argument. Look back on my previous post, I said that the pay-cuts could be made on a performance basis. Set a target for total savings necessary and cut the pay of public servants based on performance. For example: decide that the best employees have to take a cut of 5 to 8%, average employees take a cut of 9 to 12%, poor employees get a cut of 13 - 15% and the worst are dismissed for non-performance.

Surely you can agree that a system such as this would be fairer to public sector workers than the current system where the laziest git who's punching a clock waiting on retirement is paid the same as the most valuable member of his peers?

And, by the way, public servants have taken a pay cut already.

Based on the average PS salary of 46k that I posted about, I'm getting a figure of just under 7.5% of a cut of gross pay? Is this a fair estimate of the average deduction of a public sector worker's salary? Considering the private sector is seeing lay-offs and 10 to 20% pay-cuts aren't unusual, it would seem to me that the public sector are faring rather well by comparison... especially when their average salary is higher than that of the private sector worker...

grahamo

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah you know what you are dead right.
Actually you know what you should get an increase.
Even if we have to borrow more and increase taxes then it shoudl be done.
Afterall, it is all the fault of all us private sector workers driving BMWs, going on 8 holidays a year and having pensions of 27 million.
We started it all.
The public sector, even those fine employees in the Regulatos office, the planning offices, the Central Bank, the Dept of Finance and our politicans were led astray by us in the private sector.

I am glad your excellent synopsis of the situation has shown me the error of my ways.
If you don't mind I will now slink off to try and sell my other BMW M5 and cancel the trip to Barbados.
Once again I am ever so sorry for upsetting such a hard working and put upon public sector worker such as yourself.
We in the private sector have such a lot to learn from you.

Maybe I should go back to high infants again :rolleyes:

You are being far too harsh on yourself. Its all the fault of those gits in the public sector. They all have yachts and holiday homes and their pensions are like Manchester City.....MASSIVE! ....and its just not fair! :D

Sleepy

techdiver wrote: »

Graduate level Software Engineer in the place where I work would be no more than €24000 - €26000.

Higher than the 22k that I started on but that was a few years ago...

Does anyone know what additional percentage should be added to a PS salary to cover the value of the pension when comparing remuneration packages?

grahamo

Sleepy wrote: »

So redundancies should be limited to the private sector only? Like I said in my first post, I wasn't advocating firing 170,000 people just pointing out that your argument that letting that number of people go would cost the exchequer billions was nonsense.


Again, that's a nonsense of an argument. Look back on my previous post, I said that the pay-cuts could be made on a performance basis. Set a target for total savings necessary and cut the pay of public servants based on performance. For example: decide that the best employees have to take a cut of 5 to 8%, average employees take a cut of 9 to 12%, poor employees get a cut of 13 - 15% and the worst are dismissed for non-performance.

Surely you can agree that a system such as this would be fairer to public sector workers than the current system where the laziest git who's punching a clock waiting on retirement is paid the same as the most valuable member of his peers?


Based on the average PS salary of 46k that I posted about, I'm getting a figure of just under 7.5% of a cut of gross pay? Is this a fair estimate of the average deduction of a public sector worker's salary? Considering the private sector is seeing lay-offs and 10 to 20% pay-cuts aren't unusual, it would seem to me that the public sector are faring rather well by comparison... especially when their average salary is higher than that of the private sector worker...

Please don't tell me your post is all about doing whats right for the economy etc. etc. The whole lot of that post just smacks of begrudgery!

techdiver

Sleepy wrote: »

Higher than the 22k that I started on but that was a few years ago...

Another piece of information I have clarified from another company source. The going rate for IT Support/Help-desk graduate is only €20 - €25K max. They are also required to have a third level qualification.

stevoman

techdiver wrote: »

Another piece of information I have clarified from another company source. The going rate for IT Support/Help-desk graduate is only €20 - €25K max. They are also required to have a third level qualification.

well if thats the case in hindsight its very foolish for anyone to bother getting a third level qualification in IT if the starting slary is only 20-25k when you can do better in the civil service. im glad i dropped out now!

Sleepy

grahamo - if an employer can't afford their employees services you have to accept that either or both of the following must take place until the services can be afforded (or revenues improve to the point where the difference between income and expenditure is met - and this isn't an option open to your employer at the moment)

some of the workforce are going to be made redundant
all of the workforce is going to be taking a pay-cut

Lu Tze

stevoman wrote: »

well if thats the case in hindsight its very foolish for anyone to bother getting a third level qualification in IT if the starting slary is only 20-25k when you can do better in the civil service. im glad i dropped out now!

Does job satisfaction account for nothing? Challenges? Responsibility?

stevoman

Lu Tze wrote: »

Does job satisfaction account for nothing? Challenges? Responsibility?

i have tonnes of job satisfaction, in fact i love my job. its the career i knew i wanted to do from when i was in school.

challenges? lots of them everyday.

responsibilty? loads, and that also gives me great job satisfaction.

Riskymove

Lu Tze wrote: »

Does job satisfaction account for nothing? Challenges? Responsibility?

sigh!

just because someone is in the Public Sector does not mean they have unstatisfying, unchallenging jobs with no responsibility:rolleyes:

Fergus08

Sleepy wrote: »

So redundancies should be limited to the private sector only? Like I said in my first post, I wasn't advocating firing 170,000 people just pointing out that your argument that letting that number of people go would cost the exchequer billions was nonsense.


No, but what's the point in adding more people to the dole queues, at this point in time? You're still dodging the question of what will the social, political and economic cost be by artificially inflating the dole by sacking huge numbers of public sector workers.

Again, that's a nonsense of an argument. Look back on my previous post, I said that the pay-cuts could be made on a performance basis. Set a target for total savings necessary and cut the pay of public servants based on performance. For example: decide that the best employees have to take a cut of 5 to 8%, average employees take a cut of 9 to 12%, poor employees get a cut of 13 - 15% and the worst are dismissed for non-performance.

Surely you can agree that a system such as this would be fairer to public sector workers than the current system where the laziest git who's punching a clock waiting on retirement is paid the same as the most valuable member of his peers?

No, not really. Correct me if I'm wrong, but performance related pay is usually used to motivate people. You're staking out an innovatory approach - performance related cuts! You think people would buy that? How, exactly?

Based on the average PS salary of 46k that I posted about, I'm getting a figure of just under 7.5% of a cut of gross pay? Is this a fair estimate of the average deduction of a public sector worker's salary? Considering the private sector is seeing lay-offs and 10 to 20% pay-cuts aren't unusual, it would seem to me that the public sector are faring rather well by comparison... especially when their average salary is higher than that of the private sector worker...

Well the 10-20% pay-cuts are a bit of an urban myth, at this stage. Sure, in the construction sector huge pay cuts are the order of the day and job losses as well. But in other parts of the private sector it's not as bad as is being made out.

From a quick perusal of the Industrial Relations News site we see pay cuts of 7% in Aer Arann http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14593&issueType=1 and cuts of 2.5% in Bulmers http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14587&issueType=1

The independent Labour Court is rejecting spurious attempts to get out of paying social partnership in the private sector, as in Hoyer http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14205&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016

And some sectors of the private sector are paying partnership increases http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14197&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016

http://www.irn.ie/issues/article_unreg.asp?id=14383&issueType=4&kw=Towards%202016

Contrast this with ALL public sector workers having to take a pay cut, without exception.

Riskymove

Sleepy wrote: »

some of the workforce are going to be made redundant
all of the workforce is going to be taking a pay-cut

There are going to be lots of people leaving under the early retirement scheme

lots of contract staff will not be renewed

others will be taking sabbaticals or the new reduced working year initiative

no new guards, teachers etc

everyone else will be paying the levy