Public workers earn 48 per cent more than others

Time Magazine

jmayo wrote: »

What are you on about public sector premium ?

That thing the thread is about.

Maybe you mean getting a loading because you are working in capital city or something ?

No. Public sector workers earn about 20% on average for similar skills/experience.

What do you mean no country near as rich as Ireland ?

The IMF bail out countries much poorer than us. They do most of their work with the dirt poor.

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.

Most of our wealth remains in property. Very little of our income derives from that these days. We still have the brains we had prior to the bust.

More generally, what's your point?

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

I know this. What's your point?

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

What's your point?

People did. They were mistaken. Thankfully we're nowhere near as indebted as they are and our currency is a lot more secure.

Can I throw out my own country that's about as relevant as Iceland? Equatorial Guinea are doing pretty well. But everyone thought they were poor. People were wrong there, too. And people were wrong when they thought America would fall into a massive recession after 9/11. People are sometimes wrong.

So, what's your point?

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:

You have no idea how much of a salary cut I have taken this year, essentially by choice.

And I assure you it's a lot more than €3,000.

BTW do you think that we should all be forced to work for sub Sharan African wages or something ?

Yep that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

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:

Yeah I said those words too.

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

Of course they're life or death. Increases/decreases in GDP do that. Over the Celtic Tiger our life expectancies increased by several years. We're not talking about us running out of food, which happens when poorer countries run out of money.

Lockstep

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...

Wait a minute; someone who has been posting throughout the day is trying to accuse others of being underemployed and who have all day to dream up arguments? Are you unemployed or just willing to dick around on your employers time?

Pot, kettle black.

Hillel

ardmacha wrote: »

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.

Agreed. However, the most disgraceful element of benchmarking was that there was no effective measures put in place to ensure ongoing efficiency improvements. Neither was there a measure to compare efficiency levels and output accross the state sector (Civil Servants, Public Servants, etc) and comparable jobs in the private sector. In effect a weak government allowed the public sector unions cherrypick the good parts (the pay) and ignore the more demanding elements.[/quote]

ardmacha wrote: »

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.

Most reasonable people would aspire to that objective. The problem is the cost, which is quite simply unaffordable. Look at the resistance to the pension levy, which is only a limited contribution to the true pension cost.

ardmacha wrote: »

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.

Is it not (much) more unjust that public sector benchmarking is only applied when it is to the advantage of public sector workers? Average pay in the private sector has dropped substantially, with no corresponding drop in public sector pay.

ardmacha

Hillel wrote: »

Most reasonable people would aspire to that objective. The problem is the cost, which is quite simply unaffordable. Look at the resistance to the pension levy, which is only a limited contribution to the true pension cost.

Pensions have become unaffordable, if they are, for two reasons. Base wages may be too high, which should be dealt with to reduce the amount paid to employees more than pensioners. Secondly people live longer, which should be addressed directly by an increase in the retirement age.

Hillel wrote: »

Is it not (much) more unjust that public sector benchmarking is only applied when it is to the advantage of public sector workers? Average pay in the private sector has dropped substantially, with no corresponding drop in public sector pay.

The pension levy is a pay cut, nothing else.

A new benchmarking is entirely appropriate. But the original benchmarking was a joke, as noted here by several posters. A new benchmarking would be a disaster if sets out to achieve reductions from those sectors where it thinks it can get away with it, rather than really looking at complex issues of pensions, education levels, and so on. Some of the simplistic postings on this forum illustrate the way in which this might happen. For instance people continually conflate job security derived from a reluctance to sack wasters with job security derived from the fact that demand for things like health and education is continuous so competent employees in such sectors have pretty secure jobs whether in the private or public sector.

Hillel

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, i.e. saving about 6% on public sector wages and pensions. 6% is about €1-€1.5bn.

Your own references, albeit dated, show that (where it exists) the public sector premium is restricted to low-skilled/"low-employability'' workers. What we have in Ireland is a premium for skilled/qualified individuals (e.g. teachers, nurses, guards.....)

Eliminating the premium for these workers (with 6% for the rest) should, extrapolating from your figures, give savings of circa €2.5 billion. Rolling back the benchmark increases for pensioners would, surely?, give a saving of another €1 billon or so. Not where we need to be, but getting there.

Hillel

ardmacha wrote: »

Pensions have become unaffordable, if they are, for two reasons. Base wages may be too high for all public servants are too high, which should be dealt with to reduce the amount paid to employees more than pensioners. Secondly people live longer, which should be addressed directly by an increase in the retirement age.

We're getting there. (I've fixed your quote, see above.:D)

ardmacha wrote: »

The pension levy is a pay cut, nothing else.

Yeah, right.

ardmacha wrote: »

A new benchmarking is entirely appropriate. But the original benchmarking was a joke, as noted here by several posters. A new benchmarking would be a disaster if sets out to achieve reductions from those sectors where it thinks it can get away with it, rather than really looking at complex issues of pensions, education levels, and so on.

Agreed.

ardmacha wrote: »

For instance people continually conflate job security derived from a reluctance to sack wasters with job security derived from the fact that demand for things like health and education is continuous so competent employees in such sectors have pretty secure jobs whether in the private or public sector.

Established public servants are NEVER sacked, or disciplined, other than for extremely serious breaches of disipline. That issue has been done to death in previous threads.

However, regardless, the issue is FAR greater than a "reluctance to sack wasters". In the private sector a teacher who is underperforming will not have their contract renewed, likewise for nurses, engineers...... In the public sector, not only are under-performers not sacked, they get annual increments over and above any national pay increase. We, in the private sector are paying, in many cases with our jobs, for this cloud cuckoo land.

Time Magazine

Hillel wrote: »

Your own references, albeit dated, show that (where it exists) the public sector premium is restricted to low-skilled/"low-employability'' workers. What we have in Ireland is a premium for skilled/qualified individuals (e.g. teachers, nurses, guards.....)

And then I point out why it drops at higher-levels, i.e. retirement ages, which is backed up here.

It doesn't go away, it's just hiding elsewhere.

Hillel

The Economist wrote: »

And then I point out why it drops at higher-levels, i.e. retirement ages, which is backed up here.

It doesn't go away, it's just hiding elsewhere.

Yeah, but now we're back to an Irish context.

Hillel

ardmacha wrote: »

Pensions have become unaffordable, if they are, ...

Hard information to back up my position that the cost of public sector pensions is unsustainable, and why:

Given the above arrangements, the Group observes that the annual cost of purchasing similar pension arrangements (including the earnings-linking of pension benefits) in the private sector would be very high indeed: ranging from around 27% of annual salary in the case of a typical civil servant employed prior to 2004 to 31% for a teacher entitled to retire at age 55; 33% for a hospital consultant; 48% in the case of a Garda member; and as high as 87% of annual salary in the case of a High Court Judge. The cost of providing similar benefits in a Defined Contribution arrangement, which is more generally applicable in the private sector, would be significantly higher in all cases.

When you see that the above comparisons relate to Defined Benefit private sector pensions, where much of the tab is taken up by the employer, the scale of the issue becomes clearer.

BeQuiet

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Wait a minute; someone who has been posting throughout the day is trying to accuse others of being underemployed and who have all day to dream up arguments? Are you unemployed or just willing to dick around on your employers time?

Pot, kettle black.

Wrong - I never use boards.ie on my employers time .

Can you say the same ?

BeQuiet

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Wait a minute; someone who has been posting throughout the day is trying to accuse others of being underemployed and who have all day to dream up arguments? Are you unemployed or just willing to dick around on your employers time?

Pot, kettle black.

also ...

I suggested a while back on this thread , for the sake really of "full disclosure" as they say, that every poster should declare where they work (public sector / pvt sector / home worker / student/ unemployed/ other).

I see that you and quite a few other posters did not take me up on this suggestion!!
Why am I not that surprised?
(I am private sector, in case u were wondering )


While I am it it, it would be interesting to see length of service of the posters here , esp those in public sector.
Imho many of the most entrenched and reactionary public svc opinions are from those longest in service - their sense of entitlement to their massive benefits packages is quite shocking.

All we can pray for is that some of todays Bord Snip suggestions actually get acted on .... I wont be holding my breath though knowing the fight they will have on their hands against the entrenched establishment.

An idea for Bord Snip would be to force all public sector staff to work in the private sector regularly - say one year out of every five or so.
Unfortunately its an impractical idea, mainly because most private companies would go bust in short order if they had to put up with the public service work standards (never mind the salary / pension / benefits costs).

grahamo

cdb wrote: »

If these figures are correct there is only one answer, another round of benchmarking.


http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/public-workers-earn-48-per-cent-more-than-others-1816537.html

48% more. Bull****!

Lockstep

BeQuiet wrote: »

Wrong - I never use boards.ie on my employers time .

Can you say the same ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=7543832&pp=25
Are you on holidays then; as you've a lot of posts during the workday over the past week.

I don't work with a computer so I can safely say the same.

BeQuiet wrote: »

also ...

I suggested a while back on this thread , for the sake really of "full disclosure" as they say, that every poster should declare where they work (public sector / pvt sector / home worker / student/ unemployed/ other).

I see that you and quite a few other posters did not take me up on this suggestion!!
Why am I not that surprised?
(I am private sector, in case u were wondering )

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61150612#post61150612
That good enough for you?
If it's that important to you, I'm a student working part time in retail.

BeQuiet wrote: »

An idea for Bord Snip would be to force all public sector staff to work in the private sector regularly - say one year out of every five or so.
Unfortunately its an impractical idea, mainly because most private companies would go bust in short order if they had to put up with the public service work standards (never mind the salary / pension / benefits costs).

Actually it'd be an impractical idea because of the logistical problems and be an administrative nightmare. You honestly think that it would be at all possible to coordinate all the public sector workers in the country into a private sector job (of which there are few right now), and then coordinate them back into work at the end of the year?
But don't let that get in the way of your theory.

jimmmy

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...

Ah your 're right...shure they have every right to post during working hours...a few of them even said it. One public service poster a month or two ago posted for almost half an hour one morning +, he said it was ok, it was during his tea break...
The thread point about them earning 48% more is just one aspect of our public service...hopefully for the sake of the country it will get addressed sooner rather than later.

Lockstep

Are you not working today Jimmmy?

oscarBravo

BeQuiet wrote: »

I suggested a while back on this thread , for the sake really of "full disclosure" as they say, that every poster should declare where they work (public sector / pvt sector / home worker / student/ unemployed/ other).

I see that you and quite a few other posters did not take me up on this suggestion!!
Why am I not that surprised?
(I am private sector, in case u were wondering )


While I am it it, it would be interesting to see length of service of the posters here , esp those in public sector.

You don't get to demand "full disclosure" from anyone. People have their opinions, to which they are entitled. If you feel those opinions are invalid, you're free to refute them.

Badgering people to declare where they work is hostile, argumentative and not conducive to debate. It stops now.

jimmmy

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Are you not working today Jimmmy?

I can assure you that nobody pays me to work / I am not at work while I am on boards.ie

As regards someones suggestion that " that every poster should declare where they work (public sector / pvt sector / home worker / student/ unemployed/ other)." its quite a good suggestion, as many of the poster on boards.ie seem to be public service , and have a vested interest in the pay and pensions etc of same. For the record, I am private sector. The government does not pay me, I pay the government.

Lockstep

jimmmy wrote: »

I can assure you that nobody pays me to work / I am not at work while I am on boards.ie

Strange, as you have a lot of posts during working hours.

jimmmy

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Strange, as you have a lot of posts during working hours.

Not all that strange. Out of over 1,800,000 people, there are some who are not answerable to others as regards posting on the internet at 11 am.

I will not ask anytrhing about you or other posters, in case I am accused of badgering

Lockstep

jimmmy wrote: »

Not all that strange. Out of over 1,800,000 people, there are some who are not answerable to others as regards posting on the internet at 11 am.

Self employed?

jimmmy wrote: »

I will not ask anytrhing about you or other posters, in case I am accused of badgering

Half an hour ago you were lambasting the public sector for posting during working hours. I don't see it as badgering to ask those who do so to explain why they're doing the same.
(Apologies if this is not the case)

jimmmy

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't see it as badgering to ask those who do so to explain why they're doing the same.

As I said before, I can assure you that nobody pays me to work / I am not at work while I am on boards.ie. Now please stop badgering me.

Lockstep

I just find it strange that you mock others for posting during business hours (and who then try to make excuses for it) but you get edgy when asked to explain why you do the same and don't feel like going into more detail.

If you don't want to answer; it's cool. Not badgering.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Badgering people to declare where they work is hostile, argumentative and not conducive to debate. It stops now.

*ahem*

jimmmy

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I just find it strange that you mock others for posting during business hours

To set the record straigh : I never mocked anyone for posting during business hours : there would be no posts between say 9am and 6 pm if nobody could post during business hours.
Now back to the real thread : public service pay etc...as I said before the thread point about them earning 48% more is just one aspect of our public service...hopefully for the sake of the country it will get addressed sooner rather than later.

solice

jimmmy wrote: »

Now back to the real thread : public service pay etc...as I said before the thread point about them earning 48% more is just one aspect of our public service...hopefully for the sake of the country it will get addressed sooner rather than later.

I agree with you that salaries need to be sorted asap. They need to be reduced further than the pension levy, be it by an actual reduction in PS salaries or further taxes on PS salaries.

But I can understand peoples annoynace of the 48% figure. For example, on Matt Cooper last week or else on George Hook, ill try and find the podcast and link people later, there was a guy on saying that the average salary in AIB was 70k. I would hazard a guess (complete guess and open to correction) that front line staff, the people we see on a day to day basis behind the counter are on nothing near that and are probably on something around 35k.

Now assuming that AIB is like a traditional company, it will have more people at the bottom of the salary ladder than at the top. So the average figure is skewed (quiet significantly) by the very large salaries at the top.

jimmmy

solice wrote: »

I agree with you that salaries need to be sorted asap. They need to be reduced further than the pension levy, be it by an actual reduction in PS salaries or further taxes on PS salaries..

Thank you. I think it is obvious that public sector salaries need to be cut ...the current situation where they are the highest in the known world cannot continue.

solice wrote: »

But I can understand peoples annoynace of the 48% figure.

From talking to people I think its beyond annoyance ....there is real anger at our apartheid style economy now.

solice

jimmmy wrote: »

From talking to people I think its beyond annoyance ....there is real anger at our apartheid style economy now.

Ill rephrase it, perhaps I wasnt clear enough. Please read the entire post!

But I can understand people in the public service being annoyed with the 48% figure being thrown around without much thought to what it actually means. For example, on Matt Cooper last week or else on George Hook, ill try and find the podcast and link people later, there was a guy on saying that the average salary in AIB was 70k. I would hazard a guess (complete guess and open to correction) that front line staff, the people we see on a day to day basis behind the counter are on nothing near that and are probably on something around 35k.

Now assuming that AIB is like a traditional company, it will have more people at the bottom of the salary ladder than at the top. So the average figure is skewed (quiet significantly) by the very large salaries at the top.

jimmmy

solice wrote: »

Ill rephrase it, perhaps I wasnt clear enough. Please read the entire post!

I read your entire post, twice, and I added to it. I take your point about
private sector companies eg AIB having quote " more people at the bottom of the salary ladder than at the top. So the average figure is skewed (quiet significantly) by the very large salaries at the top. " unquote. However, the exact same point has been made about the public sector eg there are more people on lower salies than consultants etc. That is why statisticians make averages eg the cso are able to say average public sector salary. In the private sector, many people work in far smaller, less well paid businesses than AIB.

irish_bob

jimmmy wrote: »

Thank you. I think it is obvious that public sector salaries need to be cut ...the current situation where they are the highest in the known world cannot continue.

From talking to people I think its beyond annoyance ....there is real anger at our apartheid style economy now.

jimmy , i agree with almost everything you say but never underestimate the cynicism of the irish people , while most of us dont work in the public sector , as ive said before , everyone has a relative who does , anyone who has a son , daughter , wife or brother , sister who works in the public sector will support them all the way , we like to keep money in the family in this country even it means breaking the country

hollyg

Ronando wrote: »

By coincident, that source quoted earlier comparing average pay in public and private sectors has been updated today, and now includes semi-state and health sectors:
http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/13/public-sector-versus-private-sector-pay-update/

It also refers to research by Davy, about very specific experience/age/job type cohort, shown here, which says the per-hour difference is as large as 70%:
http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/07/economics-11072009-public-servants-earn.html

i see that the davy research you give link to compares "third level degree or higher" in PS at 35 euro per hour to 25 euro per hour in the private sector.
what does this comparison mean? the large numbers with basic arts and science and business degrees lumped in with the smaller number of people with work-targeted 4th level and professional qualifications?

if this is how judgement is to be made re how much to cut or how much to let fall PS pay then i would really welcome another round of benchmarking.

i am an nchd, 'spr' grade near the top of the scale, i have 10 years experience + 3 bachelor dergrees + set professional exams + MSc + loads other courses etc - and all of these are relevant and targeted to the job i do every day. i make just under 36 euro per hour. i do very little paid overtime the last 2 years (about 12 hours per month - that is paid - rest unpaid). (interns get 17 euros per hour; 'senior registrar' at top of their scale - of whom there are very few and would be people with over 10 years exp, doing for all intents and purposes clinical work at level of consultant - get about 40 euro per hour).
thankfully, overtime is going - that is if the hse can put theire money where their mouths have been.

none of us have permanent jobs and getting a consultant post will depend on finishing doctoral degrees, publishing etc.

i started working when we didn't get paid at all for between 20 and 40 hours per week of our o.t. and got 2/3s pay for the other 20. at that time no one was interested in reducing our overtime because it was cheap (and unsafe and miserable).

i would like to see our pensions PS reduced in some way (maybe the lump sum or index linking, reduce to rates that reflect average pay over working life and not at retirement, stop full pension for early retirees - i don't know - just make it fair).
i would like to see top pay reviewed if necessary (including consultants).
i am delighted that people coming up behind me will no longer be working stupid hours - either for high pay or for no pay (not that long ago!).
i have no problem with getting rid of our living out allowance with the overtime (though not training grant as only covers about half training cost as is).

but when i see comparisons supposedly 'like for like' that compare my efforts for 35 and a bit euro per hour to the large numbers of people with
"third level degree or higher" i know there is misinformation going on.

if PS rates are to be cut the only way of doing it fairly is with another round of benchmarking that looks at the full picture of 3rd and 4th level qualifications and whether people are actually using those qualifications in their jobs and looking at pay at different stages of work etc.