Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others

P. Breathnach

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.

The CSO report from which the Indo selectively quoted showed that the occupational mix in the public sector was different from the private sector, the educational attainment was higher, the age and experience of employees was greater. These are not minor points, and are not "completely invalid".

... But a little bit of honesty from those posting here would be appreciated.

Try it.

Lockstep

jimmmy wrote: »

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.

Surely you also have a vested interest?

I'm assuming from your posts that you are a private sector worker. Lower public sector pay would almost certainly reduce your taxes; it is in your own interests to seek lower public sector pay.

Riskymove

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Surely you also have a vested interest?

I'm assuming from your posts that you are a private sector worker. Lower public sector pay would almost certainly reduce your taxes; it is in your own interests to seek lower public sector pay.

it should be in all our interests that the current public expenditure bill be brought under control..none of us should want high borrowing, a bankrupt country or the IMF etc

however, focussing on one issue (for whatever reason) is a bad way to do this

Lockstep

Riskymove wrote: »

it should be in all our interests that the current public expenditure bill be brought under control..none of us should want high borrowing, a bankrupt country or the IMF etc

however, focussing on one issue (for whatever reason) is a bad way to do this

True.
But Jimmmy was referring to vested interests here. Not what is in the common good.

ardmacha

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

There is considerable variation in various sections though, if norms in the the most efficient part of the PS were applied generally then things would be much improved. One of the disadvantages of the usual "they are all wasters" approach taken by the media and a lot of the posters here is that this kind of measure is disparaged.

To the extent that public sector pensioners pay has increased beyond inflation for, say, the last five years; these increases should be rolled back.

I don't that pensioners should have a diminishing part of the wealth of society, keeping a constant relationship between pensioners and employees seems perfectly reasonable. That said the present arrangements have imposed a pay reduction on PS employees in the form of the pension levy, without an equivalent reduction in pensions. It is unjust that the person earning €50,000 has had the reduction while coping with an increased workload etc, while a person on a pension of €50,000 has had no reduction.

Time Magazine

jimmmy wrote: »

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 ?

Stop casting the IMF as some boogie-man waiting to pounce. They don't "move in" anywhere. They've only ever lent money and restructured the finances of countries that have requested it. And if they were called upon, it's unlikely that they'd change public sector pay much at all.

Your portrayal of them is just plain wrong.

BeQuiet

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.

It is rapidly getting to the stage in Ireland when the IMF may have to be brought in. And we should all welcome that . It might stir up the cosy club thats running the country (the permanent sitting government), and just might start the essential cutting of the huge public service wastage.

Lets not forget 2 of the CSO findings:
"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."

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

It is rapidly getting to the stage in Ireland when the IMF may have to be brought in. And we should all welcome that .

I think perhaps you misunderstand what it would mean for this country if the IMF were to actually have to be brought in

you seem to have very rose-tinted glasses about it

it would mean this country had reached bankruptcy effectively, i think we should all hope it never happens

BeQuiet

The Economist wrote: »

Stop casting the IMF as some boogie-man waiting to pounce. They don't "move in" anywhere. They've only ever lent money and restructured the finances of countries that have requested it. And if they were called upon, it's unlikely that they'd change public sector pay much at all.

Your portrayal of them is just plain wrong.

On what do you base that view?



IMF restructuring programs are put in place when IMF funding is put in place. This has been done for many states - S Korea is one example.

And typically these programs include significant % spending cuts by governemnt . This includes capital programs, and current spending, and a major element is normally public sector pay levels.

jdivision

parsi wrote: »

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

Because that's the going rate until you get into the public sector? bit like RTE and journalists to be honest.

BeQuiet

Riskymove wrote: »

I think perhaps you misunderstand what it would mean for this country if the IMF were to actually have to be brought in

you seem to have very rose-tinted glasses about it

it would mean this country had reached bankruptcy effectively, i think we should all hope it never happens

Yes - i may be focussing just on the positive aspects of such a thing happening - like an essential cut in public sector pay / benefits levels.

there would be a lot of pain as well - for social welfare recipients for example

But unfortunately the country is virtually bankrupt, and this is becoming a real possibility now.

jimmmy

Correct. Not only that, but if and when the IMF are brought in, do you really think the situation could continue where we have the highest paid politicians and public service in the known world ?

Riskymove

BeQuiet wrote: »

there would be a lot of pain as well - for social welfare recipients for example

well this is my point about focussing on pay

expenditure for 2009 is estimated at over €60bn

total pay bill €20bn (gross before tax and the pension levy is taken back) and 74% of that relates to Health and education

even given my own position on general reform of public sector, I believe it to be more of a long-term payoff than getting us out of our current problems

surely we can all see the need to consider the other €40bn and what might need to be done

jmayo

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Surely you also have a vested interest?

I'm assuming from your posts that you are a private sector worker. Lower public sector pay would almost certainly reduce your taxes; it is in your own interests to seek lower public sector pay.

Our tax take isn't coming close to covering our current expenditure, meaning that even with public sector pay cuts alone jimmy's taxes or anyone elses aren't going to be cut.
If anything taxes are going to increase.

The Economist wrote: »

Stop casting the IMF as some boogie-man waiting to pounce. They don't "move in" anywhere. They've only ever lent money and restructured the finances of countries that have requested it. And if they were called upon, it's unlikely that they'd change public sector pay much at all.

Your portrayal of them is just plain wrong.

You make them sound positively homely, what with their requesting a restructure of the finances of the country.

How exactly do they help with this restructing ?

They would probably request a hell of a lot more than public sector pay cuts, probably more like drastic cuts in the numbers employed.

If we do not start decreasing the deficit, sooner or later we will reach a point where we can't borrow anymore just to stay afloat.

Dear God would anyone recommend running a hosuehold budget in the way this coutnry is being run ?

In the event that your household budget has gone pearshaped, due to decrease in income and increasing costs lets say due to illness.
Do you increase your borrowings just to pay the bills or do cut back on expenditure ?
Do you tell your other half they have forego things, but you are still going to have your existing lifestyle and expenditure, all the while making things worse ?

I am just interested in the mindset of some people.

Time Magazine

BeQuiet wrote: »

On what do you base that view?

The Asian crisis was in 1997. A lot can change in 12 years. For example, think how much American foreign policy has changed since then, from Clinton, to pre-9/11 Bush, to post-9/11 Bush, to Obama. The IMF have changed their tack considerably since then. And we're not South Korea.

There's a 20% wage premium for public workers, down to about 13% when you account for the pension levy. It's almost unheard of to have no public sector premium, so let's have a very ambitious target of halving that premium, i.e. saving about 6% on public sector wages and pensions. 6% is about €1-€1.5bn. Thus a "very ambitious" target sheds a few percentage points off the deficit. On the other hand, Metro North is expected to cost in the region of €4bn.

jmayo wrote: »

You make them sound positively homely, what with their requesting a restructure of the finances of the country.

They're not. They make sure they get their money back, no doubt about that. But they've learned from their mistakes.

How exactly do they help with this restructing ?

A country asks for money, the IMF pays it, then the IMF work out how to get it back. They've never been asked for help from a country anywhere near as rich as Ireland because the sort of cut backs we need (drop a few capital projects, bring fees back, lower dole by 10%) aren't the sort of life or death cut backs that sub-Saharan African nations have to do. I'm 100% certain we'll make the cuts ourselves in due time. We just need to lose this pathetically stupid "I didn't cause this, I'm not paying for it" bullshit. Who the f*ck cares if your salary goes from €36,000 to €33,000 when there are 3 billion people living on less than €700?

I'm not saying we don't need cutbacks. As a % of our GDP we need considerable cutbacks, something of the order of a tenth. But in "human" terms a 10% reduction for us is nothing compared to a 10% reduction for a poorer country. We'll see it through once we get the rods out of our collective ass.

jimmmy

The Economist wrote: »

It's almost unheard of to have no public sector premium, so let's have a very ambitious target of halving that premium,

In most countries worldwide public sector workers are paid less than private sector workers. Public sector workers generally have better job security...in this country of course they also more often than not have other perks eg shorter working week, more holidays etc. If you want "very ambitious targets", lets have the target of having the "premium" the other way around to that which exists at present.

Time Magazine

jimmmy wrote: »

In most countries worldwide public sector workers are paid less than private sector workers.

Not in western, industrialised countries.

Hillel

The Economist wrote: »

It's almost unheard of to have no public sector premium,

That's a line I haven't heard before. Can you give some references to back it up?

The Economist wrote: »

There's a 20% wage premium for public workers, down to about 13% when you account for the pension levy. .....so let's have a very ambitious target of halving that premium, i.e. saving about 6% on public sector wages and pensions.

A "very modest" target would be 10% - in line with the private sector. In practice that is not even close to resolving the issue. Therefore the probable choice is between 15%+ of a cut in public sector pay or compulsory redundancies. I know which option I'd go for.

Lockstep

The Economist wrote: »

They've never been asked for help from a country anywhere near as rich as Ireland because the sort of cut backs we need (drop a few capital projects, bring fees back, lower dole by 10%) aren't the sort of life or death cut backs that sub-Saharan African nations have to do.

Feel free to correct me here, but didn't Britain get an IMF bailout in 1976?
I know Britain was crippled back in the day, but I wouldn't say we're that wealthy anymore, when you look at our revenue.

Time Magazine

Hillel wrote: »

That's a line I haven't heard before. Can you give some references to back it up?

Sure.

Lucifora and Meurs (2004), "We investigate public-private pay [in Britain, France and Italy.] In all countries the public sector is found to pay more low skilled workers with respect to the private sector, whilst the reverse is true for high skilled workers."

Postel-Vinay and Turon (2005) "We have four main findings. First focusing on cross-sector differences in terms of the income process only, we detect a positive average public premium both in income flows and in the present discounted sum of future income flows. [And that it goes away for the higher earners.]"

Cross-European research has shown that public sector workers retire considerably earlier. Anything that I've read suggests that the wage gap drops to zero among the high-earners because the high-earners know they're going to retire earlier in the public sector. So the public sector premium exists, it's in terms of retirement age rather than pay. (Do public servants retire earlier in Ireland? It would make sense if the premium stayed in terms of wages if they retire at the same age.)

A "very modest" target would be 10% - in line with the private sector. In practice that is not even close to resolving the issue. Therefore the probable choice is between 15%+ of a cut in public sector pay or compulsory redundancies. I know which option I'd go for.

I'm not against a public sector pay cut of around 15%. In fact I've said before said the lower-paid should take a cut about 10% (7% pension levy = close enough) and the higher-paid should take a cut of 15%. What I'm saying is that getting this through would be an awful lot harder than postponing Metro North and would only save a fraction of the amount. Basically, I'm saying there are other priorities. The best you're going to get from the public sector is a couple of percentage points off the deficit. Metro North would be 25%.

Time Magazine

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Feel free to correct me here, but didn't Britain get an IMF bailout in 1976?
I know Britain was crippled back in the day, but I wouldn't say we're that wealthy anymore, when you look at our revenue.

I went through a million different sources to get proof that we're far richer than Britain was in 1976. I wish I'd thought of checking the Penn World Tables sooner. British PPP in 1976 was about $18,000 (specifically $14,712 in 2000 dollars) in today's money. Less than half ours is today, even with the recession.

(Also, revenue is a poor measure of income. And income isn't a great measure of wealth.)

nesf

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.

It doesn't. As I pointed out in the Economics forum the above only applies if one ignores the effect of inflation and that the worker earns far lower than their final salary for the majority/large proportion of their working life. If you factor in increases in the pension over time while retired it becomes even more pronounced.

jimmmy

The Economist wrote: »

I'm not against a public sector pay cut of around 15%.

Good, but why not go further ? In most developed countries worldwide public sector workers are rightly paid less than private sector workers, as public sector workers generally have better job security and sometimes other perks eg less stress and pressure, shorter working week, more holidays etc. As I said before, if you want your "very ambitious targets", lets have the target of having the "premium" the other way around to that which exists at present. Also, nobody has explained why should vets here in the public service get paid almost double what their counterparts across the border earn. Or why public service security personel get main so much more than their private sector colleagues ?

Time Magazine

jimmmy wrote: »

In most developed countries worldwide public sector workers are rightly paid less than private sector workers

Are you blind?

BeQuiet

jimmmy wrote: »

Good, but why not go further ? In most developed countries worldwide public sector workers are rightly paid less than private sector workers, as public sector workers generally have better job security and sometimes other perks eg less stress and pressure, shorter working week, more holidays etc. As I said before, if you want your "very ambitious targets", lets have the target of having the "premium" the other way around to that which exists at present. Also, nobody has explained why should vets here in the public service get paid almost double what their counterparts across the border earn. Or why public service security personel get so much more than their private sector colleagues ?

Jimmmy- you are essentially wasting your time posting on this thread. You are up against a large number of under-employed public servants (that term is a misnomer ), who have all day long to dream up spurious arguments or blatantly incorrect stats to post here.

Youre just humouring them by replying. And they will never get it .

Their sense of entitlement is just too great.

My advice is to leave it to them, so they can all agree with each other that the system is essentially fine... nothing that maybe a 10% pay cut (at most) wont fix.

Titanic and deckchairs comes to mind...

oscarBravo

BeQuiet wrote: »

Jimmmy- you are essentially wasting your time posting on this thread. You are up against a large number of under-employed public servants (that term is a misnomer ), who have all day long to dream up spurious arguments or blatantly incorrect stats to post here.

Youre just humouring them by replying. And they will never get it .

Their sense of entitlement is just too great.

My advice is to leave it to them, so they can all agree with each other that the system is essentially fine... nothing that maybe a 10% pay cut (at most) wont fix.

Titanic and deckchairs comes to mind...

The above post doesn't come close to my definition of a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.

Put more pithily: if you've nothing of value to contribute, don't post.

Time Magazine

oscarBravo wrote: »

The above post doesn't come close to my definition of a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.

It's no use oscar, you're arguing with a bunch of under-employed posters who just won't get it. You're just humouring them. Their sense of entitlement is just too great.

solice

I think im suffering a repetitive strain injury from reading part of the thread!

BeQuiet wrote: »

Jimmmy- you are essentially wasting your time posting on this thread. You are up against a large number of under-employed public servants (that term is a misnomer ), who have all day long to dream up spurious arguments or blatantly incorrect stats to post here.

Youre just humouring them by replying. And they will never get it .

Their sense of entitlement is just too great.

My advice is to leave it to them, so they can all agree with each other that the system is essentially fine... nothing that maybe a 10% pay cut (at most) wont fix.

Titanic and deckchairs comes to mind...

I find what you said bizzare, many people from the public service or those that have argued against you and jimmy (i think we have all argued against jimmy at some stage but I agree with him on his fundamental points) have posted here saying that both the salary and structure of the public service needs reform...maybe you should look more closely at the peoples posts and other threads relating to the Bord Snip, public service, cut backs etc.

Bord Snip Nua report is out tomorrow, personally I cant wait for it. I hope it is as progressive as the leaked stories would suggest and I hope that the govt has the liathroidi to implement as much of it as possible.

cyclopath2001

solice wrote: »

I hope that the govt has the liathroidi to implement as much of it as possible.

Be careful what you wish for.

jmayo

The Economist wrote: »

There's a 20% wage premium for public workers, down to about 13% when you account for the pension levy. It's almost unheard of to have no public sector premium, so let's have a very ambitious target of halving that premium, i.e. saving about 6% on public sector wages and pensions. 6% is about €1-€1.5bn. Thus a "very ambitious" target sheds a few percentage points off the deficit. On the other hand, Metro North is expected to cost in the region of €4bn.

They're not. They make sure they get their money back, no doubt about that. But they've learned from their mistakes.

A country asks for money, the IMF pays it, then the IMF work out how to get it back. They've never been asked for help from a country anywhere near as rich as Ireland because the sort of cut backs we need (drop a few capital projects, bring fees back, lower dole by 10%) aren't the sort of life or death cut backs that sub-Saharan African nations have to do. I'm 100% certain we'll make the cuts ourselves in due time. We just need to lose this pathetically stupid "I didn't cause this, I'm not paying for it" bullshit. Who the f*ck cares if your salary goes from €36,000 to €33,000 when there are 3 billion people living on less than €700?

I'm not saying we don't need cutbacks. As a % of our GDP we need considerable cutbacks, something of the order of a tenth. But in "human" terms a 10% reduction for us is nothing compared to a 10% reduction for a poorer country. We'll see it through once we get the rods out of our collective ass.

What are you on about public sector premium ?
Maybe you mean getting a loading because you are working in capital city or something ?
What do you mean no country near as rich as Ireland ?
It is interesting to see how rich we actually are, remember most of our wealth was in property which is dropping all the time and most of the money people used to buy property was loans that no longer can be paid back, as the banks are discovering.
Yes the ones that sold their assets that were procurred way back may be sitting on cash piles but all that means is there waas a transfer of wealth to an older generation cuaisjng younger generations to be indebted for life.

We have lost indigenous enterprises and depended on FDI which has been exiting.

I bet poeple would have thought Iceland was very rich until last year ?

It may not matter to you if someones salary goes form 36,000 to 33,000, but I am pretty sure it matters to the person whose salary is chopped :rolleyes:
BTW do you think that we should all be forced to work for sub Sharan African wages or something ?
We do not live there and we have a different set of cirumstances or should we consider a good standard of living to be not starving :rolleyes:

Actually some of our cutbacks can be life or death, or have you ever seen the state of Irish A&Es ?

BTW I do think PS are over staffed, over paid and inefficient, particularly the HSE and I also think Irish people as a whole have a lot to answer for in tolerating a regime that helped create the property bubble, then subsequently went on to blow the largesse and base public sector spending on the taxes from that bubble.
People also got very greedy which both fueled the bubble, pushed prices higher killing our competiveness, took wreckless finanical decisions and now want someone else to blame.