Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others

Riskymove

Idbatterim wrote: »

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!

the benchmarking awards from benchmarking 2 were not paid and the National pay deal was cancelled

Riskymove

LoLth wrote: »

... isnt that a sign of madness or something ?

no thats doing the same thing again and again... and expecting a different result

so we are obviously the mad ones, expecting them not to do it

BeQuiet

Riskymove wrote: »

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 "

You should re-read this post ..., it is ABSOLUTE nonsense.

Youre dismissing the CSO report on the basis that they are using averages !!! Unbelievable ... you need to go on a basic maths course !

Or maybe the CSO doesnt understand figures - is that it ?
Maybe u should educate them on how they should be doing their comparisons, and how they just do not get statistical comparisons?

Nodin

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.

"Jimmys" arguments have been dealt with in detail here before. There is little substance to them.

I am a private sector worker.

BeQuiet

LoLth wrote: »

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 ?

"subtle digs" ?--- no they are valid points! I did not think my points were overly subtle - in fact quite the reverse, they are blindingly obvious!
Just re-read them:there is a massive salary/benefits over-payment to the average public svc staff person (as now confirmed by the CSO) - what is so subtle about that ?


Also - you ask "what about thos in the public sector on contracts" - newsflash for you - there are tens of thousands in pvt sector too working on contracts, and they do not have security of tenure either .....

And many them have a tough job to do, work well past 5.30pm, get laid off FAR quicker than in public service too....
In fact - i would luv to see what the average tenure is on a public VS pvt sector contract in Ireland .... wonder if anyone would have stats on that ?

jimmmy

LoLth wrote: »

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.

In general though, not in one posters case , public service pensions are still massively subsidised. Ask any of the hundreds of thousands of current public service pensioners or those who expect to retire within say the next 5 years how much they ever paid / will pay in to their pension scheme :rolleyes:

BeQuiet

Nodin wrote: »

"Jimmys" arguments have been dealt with in detail here before. There is little substance to them.

I am a private sector worker.

CORRECTION : In your opinion, there is little substance to them.

I beg to differ .

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

You should re-read this post ..., it is ABSOLUTE nonsense.

Youre dismissing the CSO report on the basis that they are using averages !!! Unbelievable ... you need to go on a basic maths course !

Or maybe the CSO doesnt understand figures - is that it ?
Maybe u should educate them on how they should be doing their comparisons, and how they just do not get statistical comparisons?

I think you need to tone down your comments a bit tbh

I am not dismissing the report or the comparisons; there are fully correct i imagine. I am saying that they do not mean what the Indo reports them as

I am saying that the fact that the average wage of a group of 300,000 is x and the average wage of 1.5m people is Y means little in reality.....there are people at all different points on the way and given things like educational levels, types of work etc (as set out in the report) the differences are explainable....they are not like for like figures at all

something like a comparison of civil service admin grades and bank admin staff is more comparable perhaps?

irish_bob

LeSageMignon wrote: »

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

nurses , teachers , police and doctors in this country are all on extremley high wages by international standards , thier wages need to come down

BeQuiet

Riskymove wrote: »

I think you need to tone down your comments a bit tbh

I am not dismissing the report or the comparisons; there are fully correct i imagine. I am saying that they do not mean what the Indo reports them as

I am saying that the fact that the average wage of a group of 300,000 is x and the average wage of 1.5m people is Y means little in reality.....there are people at all different points on the way and given things like educational levels, types of work etc (as set out in the report) the differences are explainable....they are not like for like figures at all

something like a comparison of civil service admin grades and bank admin staff is more comparable perhaps?

Well, i was bit flabbergasted at ur argument - so thats why i put the caps in...

And really u cant blame me- your argument is fallacious (to use a big word)....

The report is absolutely valid precisely because it did NOT take sub sections of each group of workers (public / pvt ) but compared them in total.
That is the correct way to do this comparison - as of course u would expect from the CSO - so u are correct when you say "I am not dismissing the report or the comparisons; there are fully correct"

"A comparison of civil service admin grades and bank admin staff is more comparable perhaps?" - NO , only if you want to come up with a conclusion on this small sub group, which would be only of very limited interest

Your other comments on this are incorrect and a red herring, and seem intended to put some kind of doubt on the CSO conclusion?

The conclusion that "Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others" is valid

P. Breathnach

BeQuiet wrote: »

... The report is absolutely valid precisely because it did NOT take sub sections of each group of workers (public / pvt ) but compared them in total...

What report did that? The CSO did not do such a thing. That's probably because the people in the CSO know their business.

That is the correct way to do this comparison - as of course u would expect from the CSO - so u are correct when you say "I am not dismissing the report or the comparisons; there are fully correct"

Have you read the report? It's full of tables and charts.

"A comparison of civil service admin grades and bank admin staff is more comparable perhaps?" - NO , only if you want to come up with a conclusion on this small sub group, which would be only of very limited interest

Because you say so?

Your other comments on this are incorrect and a red herring, and seem intended to put some kind of doubt on the CSO conclusion?

Can you show me where the CSO stated this as a conclusion?

The conclusion that "Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others" is valid

I don't think you understand the idea of validity as statisticians use the term. In the way in which you use the word, it is valid to say that cows are bigger than kitchen chairs -- true, but not useful information.

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

BeQuiet

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What report did that? The CSO did not do such a thing. That's probably because the people in the CSO know their business.

[/url]

I agree - that was my exact point!

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Have you read the report? It's full of tables and charts.

Parts of it - yes its boring to read, but its still valid, and the summary/commentary that the Indo printed of it is valid too.

And of course its full of charts / tables - thats what CSO reports are .... why do you mention that?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Can you show me where the CSO stated this as a conclusion?

They stated - the CSO - 2 direct quotes for you - and anyone else interested :
"Public sector average hourly earnings were 47.6% higher than the private sector in October 2007."

" The average working week was 32.7 hours in the public sector and 35.0 hours in the private sector."

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think you understand the idea of validity as statisticians use the term. In the way in which you use the word, it is valid to say that cows are bigger than kitchen chairs -- true, but not useful information.

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

Yes - i do understand statistical concepts incl "validity" (its my work area) - seemingly better than your good self.
The idea of validity as statisticians use the term is exactly as others understand it .
And their conclusion is true (as you conceed), but for some unstated reason you seem to think its "not useful information"

Well, myself and many other non-public svc employees recognise the CSO factually valid conclusions as useful information, which are (yet again) that
"Public sector average hourly earnings were 47.6% higher than the private sector in October 2007."

" The average working week was 32.7 hours in the public sector and 35.0 hours in the private sector."

P. Breathnach

BeQuiet wrote: »

And of course its full of charts / tables - thats what CSO reports are .... why do you mention that?

Because the point you were making was totally unqualified, and the CSO study has many qualifications.

They stated - the CSO - 2 direct quotes for you - and anyone else interested :
"Public sector average hourly earnings were 47.6% higher than the private sector in October 2007."

" The average working week was 32.7 hours in the public sector and 35.0 hours in the private sector."

Those statements were under the heading "Commentary", and were immediately followed by charts and text showing greatly different occupation mixes, very different levels of educational attainment, different age profiles, and different levels of experience. All these factors might have something to contribute to pay differences. The CSO put the information there and did not arrive at any conclusions.

Yes - i do understand statistical concepts incl "validity" (its my work area) - seemingly better than your good self.
The idea of validity as statisticians use the term is exactly as others understand it .

We will differ on that.

And their conclusion is true (as you conceed), but for some unstated reason you seem to think its "not useful information"

It's not a conclusion. It's a difference. The CSO made no judgement.

Well, myself and many other non-public svc employees recognise the CSO factually valid conclusions as useful information, which are (yet again) that
"Public sector average hourly earnings were 47.6% higher than the private sector in October 2007."

" The average working week was 32.7 hours in the public sector and 35.0 hours in the private sector."

"Factually valid conclusions"? Spare us!

If you want a valid comparison, you need to establish some reasonable pairings, or we are dealing with cows and kitchen chairs.

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

Your other comments on this are incorrect and a red herring, and seem intended to put some kind of doubt on the CSO conclusion?

The conclusion that "Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others" is valid

I hope you have recovered from the flabbergasting I gave you...

In no way have I attempted to put any doubt on the CSO figures...no matter how much you'd like to say i did. All this argument is getting no where as usual...


If you cannot really see the difference between...

"Public workers earn 48% more than private workers"

and

"the average hourly wage of public servants is 48% more than the average hourly wage of private sector workers"

...?


with regard to the issue of sub-categories I certainly feel it is more valid to compare the salaries of workers doing similar kinds of jobs than a gross aggregate, especially where one group is 5 times the size of another



my basic point in all of this is that this particular statistic means little in reality...if it showed a bigger or smaller difference...or indeed even if it showed private sector higer than public sector....it will still not be any evidence towards showing if certain public servants were over or under paid

jimmmy

Every "sub group" study / example out of the 300,000 plus public service that I have seen ( and anyone who has kept their eyes and ears open over the last few years in this society knows plenty of examples ) indicate the public service in this country is overpaid....from the public service vet on almost double what his counterpart north of the border receives, to Gardai etc etc. When will the IMF move in as the government seems unwilling to tackle the elephant in the room / the public service gravy train as its often referred to in the media ? 30.5 million euro per day is being borrowed to pay for it, as reported in the main front page headline news article in Irelands biggest selling broadsheet recently.

solice

jimmmy wrote: »

Every "sub group" study / example out of the 300,000 plus public service that I have seen ( and anyone who has kept their eyes and ears open over the last few years in this society knows plenty of examples ) indicate the public service in this country is overpaid....from the public service vet on almost double what his counterpart north of the border receives, to Gardai etc etc. When will the IMF move in as the government seems unwilling to tackle the elephant in the room / the public service gravy train as its often referred to in the media ? 30.5 million euro per day is being borrowed to pay for it, as reported in the main front page headline news article in Irelands biggest selling broadsheet recently.

Why so eager? An Bord Snip Nua report has been given to the cabinet. They will debate the issue. The report will be published and the Minister for Finance will enact some or all of its recommendations in the budget later this year. Some of it will take effect from midnight on the day of the budget, the rest will come into force on the 1st of january. Let due process take its course, it would be far worse if the IMF came in and took over - it would bring a halt to any international investment for the forseeable future and as we are a country that is very exposed to and dependent on international markets, this would be a disastrous result! But, I suppose we are being asked to have faith in the Government and I do realise how difficult a task that is...

jdivision

To quote Davy Stockbrokers research on the CSO figureS:

For the equivalent occupation, education level or experience, the smallest gap is 25% and the largest is 76%
The gap between public and private pay cannot be justified by saying that public sector employees are more experienced, better educated or do different jobs.
For example, how can we explain the fact that security personnel in the public sector get paid 46% more than their private sector peers?

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

... as reported in the main front page headline news article in Irelands biggest selling broadsheet recently.

Can we move the discussion a little beyond the simplistic standards of the Indo, which takes some liberties with the facts in order to push an agenda?

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Can we move the discussion a little beyond the simplistic standards of the Indo, which takes some liberties with the facts in order to push an agenda?

Rather than criticising Irelands most popular broadsheet newspaper and by implication by far its largest newspaper group , perhaps you could discuss the matter in hand. Set up a seperate thread on the Sunday Indo or Independent Newspapers plc if you want.

Do you think everyone is involved in a conspiracy against the public service ? Would you not agree with the Davy Stockbrokers research on the CSO figures:


Quote:
For the equivalent occupation, education level or experience, the smallest gap is 25% and the largest is 76%
The gap between public and private pay cannot be justified by saying that public sector employees are more experienced, better educated or do different jobs.
For example, how can we explain the fact that security personnel in the public sector get paid 46% more than their private sector peers?


Or maybe you think they also have simplistic standards , which takes some liberties with the facts in order to push an agenda?

parsi

jimmmy wrote: »

For example, how can we explain the fact that security personnel in the public sector get paid 46% more than their private sector peers?

Why do the security personnel in the private sector get paid less than their peers in the Public Sector ?

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Rather than criticising Irelands most popular broadsheet newspaper and by implication by far its largest newspaper group , perhaps you could discuss the matter in hand. Set up a seperate thread on the Sunday Indo or Independent Newspapers plc if you want...

So it's okay for you to imply here that the Indo is a fair and reliable source, and not okay for me to challenge that in the same thread? Why don't you base your arguments on the CSO report rather than the Indo's selective quoting from it?

BeQuiet

Its interesting to read the posts of the public service pay / benefit defenders group on here - I think you all know who you are

Their tactics are (a typical debating strategy-so nothing unusual about it at all) to try and cast doubt on the various reports which show massive over payments to public svc, by nit picking on some minor points.... its easy to do, but of course completely invalid.


I think most fair minded people (incl public svc staff) reading this thread would be more impressed if they decided to be honest , and admit what the world and his dog know...

• pay levels in public svc are vastly in excess of private sector
• pension benefit - ditto
• working hours in pubic service are way below those in private sector
• unpaid overtime hours in public svc compared to pvt - way lower too
• security of tenure in private VS public - no comparison. (What do you have to do to get fired in public svc ?!)
• stress levels - again - nothing provable here - but imho way higher in most jobs in private sector

I certainly dont harbor any animosity to public servants - quite the opposite , I wish i was in your gang ! But a little bit of honesty from those posting here would be appreciated.

At least show some appreciation for the great situation u all find yourselves in - the rest of us are paying for it - and paying BIG

Hillel

Ms Happy wrote: »

I am on €24K and NOT PERMANENT so please as stated by many posters in other threads don't tar us all as wasters etc etc etc.
As a public sector worker I have seen the "fat" that could be trimmed off. Most of this lies with "established" employees that do SFA.
There are many hard working public sector employees that don't sit around all day doing nothing. Mnay of us face an uncertain future as many private sector workers do.

I feel your pain! The biggest scandal is not the pay differential between the private and public sector, though that will need to be addressed. By far the biggest scandal is the failure of the political establishment to address underperformance and poor productivity which is widespread accross the established/permanent public sector. And it very much is a polical issue, no individual Public Sector Manager, regardless of seniority, can address it on his/her own.

The sad fact is that there is a distinct difference between permanent and non-permanent public sector staff. With the former there is often an ingrained belief, so far, so warranted, that they are untouchable. The associated sense of entitlement can be tangible to an extent that it could almost be bottled. If such a staff member decides to do "SFA", there is little that any individual manager can do about this - the sanctions he can impose are minimal. The benchmarking exercise did little to address this core issue.

Then there are the contract/non-permanent employees, like yourself. Most, if not all, are hardworking and diligent. (It's simple, if they don't perform, their contract is not renewed.) Many are exploited, simply put, they are often expected to cover for less able, or less motivated, (established) colleagues. This has gone on for years. It is one of the reasons that there have been so many contract staff in a service that, by international standards, has more than sufficient permanent employees.

dbready wrote: »

I also believe the frontline staff Gardai, Nurses, Firefighters etc.. should be given an increase at the expense of lazy administration staff who just get moved around because there is no specific jobs for them, and to make it worse the culprits KNOW this. Again thanks to our brilliant unions in this country no one can be let go in the Public Service.

It is very unfair to target any particular area, or category of worker. There are lazy individuals in every area of the Public Sector, just as every area has hard-working individuals. The issue is that there is limited means to reward the hard working ones at the expense of the less committed/less able! (Or indeed to dismiss those "Public Servants" who are unable, or unwilling, to do their job.)

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

Its interesting to read the posts of the public service pay / benefit defenders group on here - I think you all know who you are

its also interesting that anyone who has any issue with any aspect of the media reporting of the CSO report is simply labelled as being "defenders of public pay" or as jimmy puts it "pozzies"

the report and its media reporting is the subject of this thread not pensions, stress levels or other things mentioned..yet they keep being brought into it and then this (and indeed other) thread simply unravels

i think many fair minded people here would be even more impressed if people could discuss the topic in question without constantly throwing in other issues which are not relevant to the topic just for the sake of public sector bashing

Riskymove

Hillel wrote: »

I By far the biggest scandal is the failure of the political establishment to address underperformance and poor productivity which is widespread accross the established/permanent public sector. And it very much is a polical issue, no individual Public Sector Manager, regardless of seniority, can address it on his/her own.

Absolutely agree...the source problem for many of the perceptions of the public service

solice

BeQuiet wrote: »

Its interesting to read the posts of the public service pay / benefit defenders group on here - I think you all know who you are

Their tactics are (a typical debating strategy-so nothing unusual about it at all) to try and cast doubt on the various reports which show massive over payments to public svc, by nit picking on some minor points.... its easy to do, but of course completely invalid.


I think most fair minded people (incl public svc staff) reading this thread would be more impressed if they decided to be honest , and admit what the world and his dog know...

• pay levels in public svc are vastly in excess of private sector
• pension benefit - ditto
• working hours in pubic service are way below those in private sector
• unpaid overtime hours in public svc compared to pvt - way lower too
• security of tenure in private VS public - no comparison. (What do you have to do to get fired in public svc ?!)
• stress levels - again - nothing provable here - but imho way higher in most jobs in private sector

I certainly dont harbor any animosity to public servants - quite the opposite , I wish i was in your gang ! But a little bit of honesty from those posting here would be appreciated.

At least show some appreciation for the great situation u all find yourselves in - the rest of us are paying for it - and paying BIG

I agree with you for the most part but you do make some sweeping generalisations, just because somebody works in the public sector does not mean that they sit at a desk all day. There are many that work long hours, long days and long weeks and do not get paid overtime.

But I completly agree with you. Those in the public service need to realise (and I imagine that many do), that salaries and structures need to be reformed! I am an advocate of the benchmarking process, although I know most people are not. I think we should do benchmarking every 2 years so that salaries between public nad private are kept on par, with public being a little less due to the benefits of working on the public sector (pensions being the main one).

By the way, I am a public sector worker. If you want to see my opinions on salary and structure reform in the public sector just go to the you are bord snip what are your 10 suggestions thread....

Lockstep

I'm not a public sector worker,never have been and don't intend making a career out of being one.

But quite frankly these threads all quickly devolve into rabid public sector bashings with tangents and squirreling across the board.


If you're going to criticise the public sector, then please try and make a coherent argument. The same points are being brought out ad nauseum, in every thread, whether it is relevent or not.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

the report and its media reporting is the subject of this thread not pensions, stress levels or other things mentioned..

You are entitled to your opinion but I think it fairer to say this thread - from its title and first post - is more about public service pay ( and by extension other perks such as pension etc...if you think its not a perk ask any of the existing retired public service pensioners about their pension and how much they ever paid in ) . After all, the thread title is "Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others"

jimmmy

BeQuiet wrote: »

Its interesting to read the posts of the public service pay / benefit defenders group on here - I think you all know who you are

Their tactics are (a typical debating strategy-so nothing unusual about it at all) to try and cast doubt on the various reports which show massive over payments to public svc, by nit picking on some minor points.... its easy to do, but of course completely invalid.



I think most fair minded people (incl public svc staff) reading this thread would be more impressed if they decided to be honest , and admit what the world and his dog know...

• pay levels in public svc are vastly in excess of private sector
• pension benefit - ditto
• working hours in pubic service are way below those in private sector
• unpaid overtime hours in public svc compared to pvt - way lower too
• security of tenure in private VS public - no comparison. (What do you have to do to get fired in public svc ?!)
• stress levels - again - nothing provable here - but imho way higher in most jobs in private sector

I certainly dont harbor any animosity to public servants - quite the opposite , I wish i was in your gang ! But a little bit of honesty from those posting here would be appreciated.

At least show some appreciation for the great situation u all find yourselves in - the rest of us are paying for it - and paying BIG

Excellent post, and it reminds me of someones suggestion that all posters should declare if they have a vested interest in public service pay and / or pension levels remaining as high as they are.

Hillel

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

I wish you well on your retirement, and with your pension. I do believe that benchmarking increases should never have been applied to public sector pensioners. Neither should other increases, other than index-linking to allow for inflation. To the extent that public sector pensioners pay has increased beyond inflation for, say, the last five years; these increases should be rolled back.

To declare my interest...
I work in the private sector but have 6 years "preserved" pension from my time as a Civil Servant.