Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others

jimmmy

kceire, as regards the p.s. pensions, as had been said before it is still heavily subsidised. ( Ask the hundreds of thousands of people receiving public service pensions now , or who will receive them in the next 5 or 10 years , how much they paid in to the pension fund over a lifetime working ? ). As said before, the pension debate is a seperate debate + if you want to revisit it or open a new thread then do so.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Its time the govt stood up to the public sector unions.

I agree...starting with the HSE....there is astonishing things going on there


but I don't hold out too much hope for courage from the Govt

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

kceire, as regards the p.s. pensions, as had been said before it is still heavily subsidised. ( Ask the hundreds of thousands of people receiving public service pensions now , or who will receive them in the next 5 or 10 years , how much they paid in to the pension fund over a lifetime working ? ). As said before, the pension debate is a seperate debate + if you want to revisit it or open a new thread then do so.

you should answer the questions put to you by other posters before attempting to half mod my posts.

i'll leave it there until a proper mod deems it against the forum charter, thank you for your consideration in this matter.

and once again, you brought up the issue of reducing PS pension payments, so you cannot reduce payments without reducing contributions.

jimmmy wrote: »

I have already indicated where savings are to be made eg by cutting public service pay and pensions substantially. P. Breathnach indeed has accused me of " moving the discussion away from pay levels " lol ...I am damned if I do and damned if I do'nt.

jimmmy

kceire wrote: »

you should answer the questions put to you .

I have answered the questions as far as I know, without wanting to move the debate too far off track.

kceire wrote: »

and once again, you brought up the issue of reducing PS pension payments, so you cannot reduce payments without reducing contributions.

Yes I did bring up the "issue of reducing PS pension payments", as this is one of the areas where savings in govt expenditure can be made.
As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc ).

BeQuiet

Whats the proportion of public service staff to privately employed staff ? Heard that its around 30%, and would bet that that is way over other similar countries, so issue is not just the vast overpayment levels for work done per person , but also the vast over staffing levels.

2 separate issues.

One of the problems is that virtually eveyone has someone close to them (own family usually) who is in some way on this vast government money gravy train.

Those of us working privately are paying for it, but no one really wants to tackle it - least of all the politicians who are not going to shhot thmslves in the foot.

BeQuiet

jimmmy wrote: »

I did bring up the "issue of reducing PS pension payments", as this is one of the areas where savings in govt expenditure can be made.
As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc ).

Absolutely agree - gov need to think outside the box, and tackle this kind of vast waste of money.

This wont be even on the agenda however - no one has the balls !

jimmmy

BeQuiet wrote: »

Whats the proportion of public service staff to privately employed staff ? Heard that its around 30%, and would bet that that is way over other similar countries, so issue is not just the vast overpayment levels for work done per person , but also the vast over staffing levels.

I agree. Bear in mind many other countries have bigger military departments / commitments / conscription etc in their public service figures.

BeQuiet wrote: »

One of the problems is that virtually eveyone has someone close to them (own family usually) who is in some way on this vast government money gravy train.

Those of us working privately are paying for it, but no one really wants to tackle it - least of all the politicians who are not going to shhot thmslves in the foot.

Chatting to many people I think there is now a realisation in the country how much the public service gravy train is draining the country....30.5 million euro per day in borrowings as in the front page main story in one of the broadsheets recently.

P. Breathnach

BeQuiet wrote: »

Absolutely agree - gov need to think outside the box, and tackle this kind of vast waste of money.

This wont be even on the agenda however - no one has the balls !

It would be cheaper to shoot me than pay my pension.

BeQuiet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It would be cheaper to shoot me than pay my pension.

LOL

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It would be cheaper to shoot me than pay my pension.

When I wrote "As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc )." I was talking in general, for the sake of the country, not about your own particular circumstances, in which I have no particular interest.

Gumbo

jimmmy wrote: »

Yes I did bring up the "issue of reducing PS pension payments", as this is one of the areas where savings in govt expenditure can be made.
As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc ).

can you prove this?
my friends dad worked for Lyons tea all his life and was made redundant a few years ago, and his pension is impressive to say the least. just one example of private pensions being good.

Idbatterim

why are they entitled to pensions at all? why not just contribute to a private one like everyone else does? i dont understand all of these perks, there would be thousands of people willing to take their jobs for less pay and worse conditions. And if anyone uses the arguament, but if you reduce pay, perks etc, the best etc will leave! dont make me laugh, leave and do what? I could accept that arguament if it was a well run efficient service! its anything but that! pity they didnt recruit Michael O'Leary to bord Snip Nua!

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

When I wrote "As p.s. pensions are still heavily subsidised, why cannot payments ( to existing retired public servants ) be reduced ( without reducing contributions ) ? After all, (A), contributions were recently increased without a pro-ratio increase in pensions and (B) existing retired public servants are received much higher pensions than they ever envisaged in their wildest dreams, than they ever paid in to, that are much higher that public service pensions internationally, that are much higher than most private sector pensions, and that are generally much higher than they need ( most retired public servants have paid off their mortgages, raised their kids etc )." I was talking in general, for the sake of the country, not about your own particular circumstances, in which I have no particular interest.

Yeah, right. So can I take it that everybody else's pension should be slashed, but that mine be left alone?

jimmmy

Most other pensions have been reduced or "slashed" as you put it .... those lucky enough to have them ( something like a million private sector peoople do not ). In contrast to this, public service pensions have not been reduced....not yet anyway;)

Riskymove

kceire wrote: »

can you prove this?
my friends dad worked for Lyons tea all his life and was made redundant a few years ago, and his pension is impressive to say the least. just one example of private pensions being good.

there have been many private companies that ran such pension schemes but they have been becoming rarer...there was a dispute in recent years at Bank of Ireland over changes in its scheme

I have no doubt that the pension scheme will be changed for new entrants to public service at some point

Gurgle

Idbatterim wrote: »

why are they entitled to pensions at all? why not just contribute to a private one like everyone else does?

I believe your sources of information are seriously flawed.

Idbatterim wrote: »

i dont understand all of these perks

Obviously.

BeQuiet

Idbatterim wrote: »

why are they entitled to pensions at all? why not just contribute to a private one like everyone else does? i dont understand all of these perks, there would be thousands of people willing to take their jobs for less pay and worse conditions. And if anyone uses the arguament, but if you reduce pay, perks etc, the best etc will leave! dont make me laugh, leave and do what? I could accept that arguament if it was a well run efficient service! its anything but that! pity they didnt recruit Michael O'Leary to bord Snip Nua!

That is EXACTLY what is needed - Michael O'Leary charing bord Snip Nua ...

It needs someone with his cojones to sort this unbelievable wastage out .

And on that - do you think the same O'Leary would endorse the NAMA bailout of the banks .... somehow i think he would have "issues with it " !

BeQuiet

Gurgle wrote: »

I believe your sources of information are seriously flawed.

Obviously.

No I disagree - he is correct . If you think they are "seriously flawed" , what is your evidence for that?
I think its fair to say that everyone and his dog in Ireland know that the level of public pensions is vastly in excess of that in the private (real) world.
If you think not, I would expect you to show some evidence of that .

If you dont have any such evidence (as i suspect), then dont bother posting meaningless comments. Thanks.

Riskymove

Idbatterim wrote: »

there would be thousands of people willing to take their jobs for less pay and worse conditions.

a common refrain these days..up there with "you are lucky to have a job"

.....perhaps we should bring in people from the thirld world who will work 14 hours a day for €1 a day....pay problem solved...:pac:

while we are at it we can do the same for all private jobs too...then we can all be happy as cost of services will drop and we can go back 100 years

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

That is EXACTLY what is needed - Michael O'Leary charing bord Snip Nua ...

It needs someone with his cojones to sort this unbelievable wastage out .

And on that - do you think the same O'Leary would endorse the NAMA bailout of the banks .... somehow i think he would have "issues with it " !

as per his recent Sunday indo piece, all he is interested in is removing the travel tax so Ryanair can make more money

BeQuiet

Riskymove wrote: »

there have been many private companies that ran such pension schemes but they have been becoming rarer...there was a dispute in recent years at Bank of Ireland over changes in its scheme

I have no doubt that the pension scheme will be changed for new entrants to public service at some point

About 15 years too late for the country!
(and about 25 years later than the private sector did this)

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

About 15 years too late for the country!
(and about 25 years later than the private sector did this)

better late than never....

and the bank was doing it in the last year or two not 25 years ago

BeQuiet

Riskymove wrote: »

better late than never....

and the bank was doing it in the last year or two not 25 years ago

My point was that it is about 25 years later than the private sector (not a bank) did this.

Most private sector employers moved from Final-salary pension schemes to defined-benefit schemes in the 1980's , so approx 20 - 25 years ago I would estimate.

BeQuiet

Riskymove wrote: »

as per his recent Sunday indo piece, all he is interested in is removing the travel tax so Ryanair can make more money

The man is focussed on what gets results - for him.
He doesnt have any interest in the public good - thats not his area.
And he doesnt pretend to - u got to admire him for that at least .:)

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

as per his recent Sunday indo piece, all he is interested in is removing the travel tax so Ryanair can make more money

In fairness to Michael O'Leary, your comment is not true. ( not in relation to the Sunday Indo piece I read a few weeks ago anyway, in which M O'L was interested and had comments on far more than the travel tax )

Time Magazine

How about trying to avoid a rant fest?

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/07/14/public-sector-pay-differentials-regressions-can-actually-be-useful/

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

The man is focussed on what gets results - for him.
He doesnt have any interest in the public good - thats not his area.
And he doesnt pretend to - u got to admire him for that at least .:)

er...the whole point of the piece was "what would you do to get the economy back on track" or similar

answer - remove travel tax....

LeSageMignon

Dare I offer my opinion here?! :eek:

Yes, public sector workers traditionally have had good reliable pensions and currently, compared to those who have been made redundant or had wage reductions, seem to have good salaries. However, the ordinary ground force workers are on such bad wages, compared with private sector, that they qualify for affordable housing and the likes. Also, they chose these jobs mainly for the security and decent pensions despite some conditions that private sector workers wouldn't put up with. (How many private sector workers would like to clean up vomit and give enemas, try to calm down and care for violent scumbags in A&E, work for 7 hours without a toilet break cos there simply isn't time, etc.)

Anyone I know who works in the public sector earns between 26 and 42 thousand euro per year. All are university-educated and work their asses off.

I understand that it's infuriating to read about over-inflated salaries being paid by The State but please remember that most of these are to the higher up workers, including politicians. The very hard-woking teachers, nurses, gardai and doctors (amongst others) deserve better pay and decent pensions. Cuts should be made elsewhere...like in anything unnecessary, such as Judges being given sets of personally tailored Louis Copeland suits (fact)! I'm sure there are thousands of ridiculous examples like this. Also there are many office-based civil servants who do f all and this definitely needs to be sorted out. (I worked there and saw it first-hand).

In terms of the politicians' wages, perks and ridiculous summer break I think the only thing for it is a revolution...including some guillotines at College Green

Idbatterim

the private sector is having to carry the weight of a seriously bloated public sector which it can no longer afford to do. The whole benchmarking process should be thrown into reverse! as mentioned in the SINDO on Sunday or the week before!

Riskymove

LeSageMignon wrote: »

The very hard-woking teachers, nurses, gardai and doctors (amongst others) deserve better pay and decent pensions. Cuts should be made elsewhere...

the problem there is after you remove all those type of jobs you are left with really very little

for example i think the entire civil service is around thirty odd thousand out of around 300,000

the majority are in health and education, there is no getting away from that.

The main areas which are need of reform are the HSE and then the more general public sector reform in admin areas such as issues like underperformance etc

LoLth

just to weigh in on the pensions issue (again, jimmy is making the exact same arguments he made last time).

1. private pension schemes are investments in stocks with the hope of getting a high rate of return as well.

2. in addition to the return given to the private investor, the agent doing the investment gets anything above that return.

And before you say that there are no alternatives, I would urge you to have a look at the savings schemes offered by An Post: 21% tax free return after 5 years? 10% tax free after 2 years? anyone could easily set up a rolling investment in one of those accounts if not the actual an post pension account itself.

now, if the pension fund was invested in government bonds the pension would have been guaranteed and would have yielded a nominal rate of return (as the public servant pensions supposedly are). However, either through their own choice or through the greed of the investment agent, private pensions were invested in the stock market which subsequently collapsed. Anyone have any figures on how the Anpost schemes have fared over this period?

You could have invested in government bonds but you CHOSE to invest in a pension fund with the potential for a higher return. that unfortunately meant a higher risk. and this time the risk didnt pay off. (but pension plans have paid huge dividends in recent years up to the market collapse, I didnt see much complaint about the level of public servant pensions then).

having said the above, I am well aware that some investment schemes from banks were more than a little liberal with the truth. My brother's fund for his children for example lost over 75% of its value even though only 25% of it is supposed to be invested in volatile stocks...

I am also only talking about the public servant pensions earned after years of service. I strongly disagree with the level of pension given to TDs etc after only 5(?) years when they can go and work at whatever other career they had before their public service (on top of a generous wage while they did it).

Riskymove

Idbatterim wrote: »

The whole benchmarking process should be thrown into reverse! as mentioned in the SINDO on Sunday or the week before!

the problem there is a general assumption thata new benchmarking would result in significant cuts for the public sector...i am not so sure of that

at this stage I am coming around to thinking that the answer might be to present the removal of the previous benchmarking awards as the public service pay cut

but that's probably because I disliked benchmarking so much

Riskymove

LoLth wrote: »

1. private pension schemes are investments in stocks with the hope of getting a high rate of return as well.

indeed and many people with private pension funds who retired at the height of the boom would have far better pensions than others previously or since

BeQuiet

LoLth wrote: »

just to weigh in on the pensions issue (again, jimmy is making the exact same arguments he made last time).

Jimmy's arguments are excellent - there is no reason he should not repeat them.

Your point is very long and well argued tho imho - fair play.

How about this for a suggestion - anyone who posts here should firstly announce whether they are on the gov payroll (incl quangos, etc)... that way we can know if they have a vested interest.

I will start - no I am not - and when i retire in another 18 years , i currently expect my pension to be about 11000 pa and no lump sum (thats the reality of working in the pvt sector)

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

(thats the reality of working in the pvt sector)

thats another generality...sure there are lots of people who will rely on the state pensions but there are many, many people in the private sector with extremely well off pensions

jimmmy

BeQuiet wrote: »

Jimmy's arguments are excellent - there is no reason he should not repeat them.

Your point is very long and well argued tho imho - fair play.

How about this for a suggestion - anyone who posts here should firstly announce whether they are on the gov payroll (incl quangos, etc)... that way we can know if they have a vested interest.

Thank you for that BeQuiet, and good suggestion. There are people with good arguments on both sides. However, I have got a warning for what I have said today, so I will not enquire are further about vested interests.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

thats another generality...sure there are lots of people who will rely on the state pensions but there are many, many people in the private sector with extremely well off pensions

thats another generality...about a million people in the private sector ( as far as I know ) do not have pensions, apart from the basic state pension. Many of the rest -indeed the majority of the remainder - have seen their pensions slashed, and few will enjoy the generous guaranteed pensions that all permanent public retired servants now enjoy. Take the example of a Garda taking early retirement ; his / her pension pot is estimated to be worth well over one million euro....how many private sector people- on typical private sector wages - could hope to build up to that pension pot ? How many people in their fifties in private sector have that guaranteed pension pot ? There are a hell of a lot more private sector people unemployed.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

thats another generality....

jimmmy I really don't want to be dragged into this stuff again today and have Mods on to me, can you please stop over-reacting to things I post

all I am saying is that its a generality to suggest private sector=no pension

i didn't say anything about public pensions or how they compare or anything like that

solice

Is it possible to get a % breakdown of the public sector population by salary(X% on 20k-25k, y% on 26k-30k, z% on 30k-35k)?

Ms Happy

jimmmy wrote: »

Most other pensions have been reduced or "slashed" as you put it .... those lucky enough to have them ( something like a million private sector peoople do not ). In contrast to this, public service pensions have not been reduced....not yet anyway;)

I still don't think you get the idea of not putting all public sector workers in the same box. There are many of us that will not be made permanent and won't see a pension and are still paying a pension levy. blah blah blah

If you don't like ths system then fine, have you a problem with all Public Sector workers? I worked in the private sector for years and I haven't changed since I went to the public sector.

Riskymove

solice wrote: »

Is it possible to get a % breakdown of the public sector population by salary(X% on 20k-25k, y% on 26k-30k, z% on 30k-35k)?

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2007/nes_2007.pdf

page 8 has a general breakdown based on hourly rates

P. Breathnach

BeQuiet wrote: »

Jimmy's arguments are excellent - there is no reason he should not repeat them...

How many times?

jimmmy

Ms Happy wrote: »

I still don't think you get the idea of not putting all public sector workers in the same box.

Of course not all public sector workers have the same salary, conditions etc etc ...I never said or suggested they are.

Ms Happy wrote: »

If you don't like ths system then fine, have you a problem with all Public Sector workers?

No I do not have a problem with all public sector workers themselves...in fact I have many friends who are public service workers, some of whom tell me of the waste and everything else etc in the public sector system. Some even admit the public service in general is overpaid, that pensions + other perks are over generous given the state of the economy etc.

solice

Riskymove wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2007/nes_2007.pdf

page 8 has a general breakdown based on hourly rates

Thanks, but was hoping for an annual salary breakdown, would help in some calculation of final salaries and pension payments and to see if people really do/dont contribute enough...

Anyone know where I can get a breakdown like that and some info on the payscales for the various depts in the public sector?

jimmmy wrote: »

No I do not have a problem with all public sector workers themselves...in fact I have many friends who are public service workers

LOL

I dont have a problem with (*insert social minority*), some of my best friends are (*insert social minority*)!

Riskymove

solice wrote: »

Thanks, but was hoping for an annual salary breakdown, would help in some calculation of final salaries and pension payments and to see if people really do/dont contribute enough...

annual salaries are all published for public sector

try Union websites or Department of Finance website

BeQuiet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How many times?

As many as is necessary to get the point across to all the (apparent) public svc staff posting here , busy defending their positions and massive financial entitlements..... its a tough job, but fair play to him ... he keeps at it .

BeQuiet

What about getting back to the subject in hand ...we seem to have drifted off to the pensions side of things ... understandable of course when it is such a massive benefit for public sector staff

But still ... 48% higher paid , and it is per a CSO report ....

Anybody have any more good suggestions for how this high discrepancy can be reduced immediately ... its our civic duty to give the gov some good ideas ... ye never know, Brian Lenihan may be reading this

Idbatterim

it was 48% in 2007, when the private sector was booming, and that was before they received another round of benchmarking, its atleast 50% now!

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

But still ... 48% higher paid , and it is per a CSO report ....

I posted this on the thread on the irish economy forum in an attempt to show that, despite the Indo's best efforts, the CSO report does not mean that private sector workers earn 48% than private sector workers...


"The CSO have produced stats showing that the average Public sector is X and the average in the private sector is Y

So X is 48% higher than Y


That does not mean that "Public sector workers are paid 48% higher than private sector"
The only way that could be correct is if ALL public service earned X and ALL private sector earned Y


I am a public servant

am i paid 48% more than some private sector workers...yes
am i paid 48% more than some public sector workers...yes

are there private sector workers earning 48% more than me..yes
are there public sector workers earning 48% more than me..yes

are there private sector workers earning 100% (and higher) more than me.yes
are there public sector workers earning 100% (and higher) more than me..yes


these average comparisons mean little in the real world "

LoLth

BeQuiet wrote: »

What about getting back to the subject in hand ...we seem to have drifted off to the pensions side of things ... understandable of course when it is such a massive benefit for public sector staff

oh ffs, now you're doing it. taking it as a given and getting in a sneaky "last word" by making a throwaway comment. Go read the otehr threads on this, the math was given, the figures, real figures were given by one poster that showed that the amount paid over 30 years service covers teh amount expected to be returned. additionally, what about thos in the public sector on contracts who are paying the levy and super-annuation and are now, most likely , not going to be made permanent and not only will lose their job when their contract expires but will also not be able to recoup the money paid in the pension fund. If you want to debate a topic, debate the topic. these "subtle" digs and remarks from yourself and jimmy are just serving to cloud the issue.

and saying the same thing again and again is not discussion or debate. If you believe you are right and people are not agreeing with you then surely common sense would dictate that you are not explaining it correctly? so surely the best thing would be to change the record and stop copy/pasting the same post again and again hoping for a different reaction... isnt that a sign of madness or something ?