Statistics and Public v Private wages

amacca

irish_bob wrote: »

ok , so you think public sector salarys should be much higher than in european countries because the cost of living is higher here , what about those in the private sector in ireland who earn close to 50% less than those in the public sector and still have to deal with the cost of living here

As I have said in previous post I am doubtful that the majority (and I mean the large majority)of public sector workers do earn a premium of close to 50% above private sector workers.

I think this "statistic" is an attention grabbing headline to generate a witch hunt, soften the ground for further cuts etc.

As previous posters mentioned the average figure is used and this can be misleading. for instance aren't average salaries for private sector workers are calculated excluding ceos, boardmembers salaries and expenses + pension entitlements etc being taken into account? If they were dont you think the average private sector wages would be higher?

I dont want you to get me wrong, Im not really defending the public sector here even though I do have a vested interest of sorts Im just saying that I think the headline figure of 48% overpaid is very misleading..... im not saying that cuts arent necessary or due. Im saying Id like to see a proper comparison done so we can see how accurate these so called statistics are and I thought that was more in the sprit of the thread.

irish_bob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

As a public service pensioner, I was resigned to the prospect of my pension being reduced a bit, and was surprised that the government wriggled out of it by introducing a pensions levy rather than cutting pay rates.

But then I read some of the posts here, and I find it very difficult to acknowledge that there is a case to be made for reducing public sector pay. It is particularly galling that some of the public sector bashers refuse to acknowledge that the pensions levy is a form of pay cut.

they will get it back again in thier pension , if it was a cut , it would be gone , never to return , whats so difficult to understand , they still dont contribute near enough to thier pensions

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

they will get it back again in thier pension , if it was a cut , it would be gone , never to return , whats so difficult to understand , they still dont contribute near enough to thier pensions

That reinforces the point I was making.

The benchmarking awards explicitly took account of the value of the pension scheme and the relative job security, so at that point in time they were deemed to be covered by the pay rates -- in effect, pay, pension, and job security were one package. What's so difficult to understand about that?

amacca

irish_bob wrote: »

they will get it back again in thier pension , if it was a cut , it would be gone , never to return , whats so difficult to understand , they still dont contribute near enough to thier pensions

While you probably are right that not enough is contributed towards those pensions I think part of the issue with the pension deduction is down to the fact that a proportion of the cut comes out of non pensionable pay and some think that the government should be made acknowledge this and reclassify it as a pay cut.

Id be more knowledgeable on this if I was still a public service person. Perhaps someone could back me up or debunk this?

and as Ive said before imo part of the problem is also what I consider to be the piss poor pension provision for a large amount of private sector workers, if public service pensions are too good then I think one could make a case that a lot private sector pensions are too poor and this should be tackled. At the moment there seems to be an element of private sector interests that say public sector pensions are over generous but they don't seem to acknowledge that the pension provisions they are in part responsible for are not showing any respect for the workers that help contribute to their profits, many are not providing company schemes at all but are just matching a certain percentage of employee contributions into a private fund. Maybe instead of dragging public sector pensions to the levels of private sector pensions they could meet in the middle and profitable companies should be made show some responsibility to one their most valuable assets.....their employees.

ixoy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But then I read some of the posts here, and I find it very difficult to acknowledge that there is a case to be made for reducing public sector pay.

Surely the case is the massive, and ever-growing, deficit?

I'd also be curious of the answer - reduce pay or reduce staffing numbers?

Given the massive increase in numbers in the PS/CS in the last decade - in a way that didn't co-relate with growing population requirements - and taking into account we still seem to have many flaws (HSE!), surely that's indicative that's there many jobs out there that probably just don't need doing?

P. Breathnach

ixoy wrote: »

Surely the case is the massive, and ever-growing, deficit? ...

You are overlooking the context in which I made my comment -- the effect inflammatory statements have on people. When people want to take a mile, it becomes very difficult to give them an inch.

ixoy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are overlooking the context in which I made my comment -- the effect inflammatory statements have on people. When people want to take a mile, it becomes very difficult to give them an inch.

I find the Indo hilarious for its PS bashing and constant use of the industrial average wage against the PS wage. In a theoretical sense, you may have a point but in the sheer reality of number crunching something needs to be done.

I can only rely on my own experience on a like-for-like basis, but from the figures I'm aware of for a role equal to my own in the CS, the salaries are quite far even when the levy is taken into account. Yes it's anecdotal but I'm not sure how we're ever going to find out any other way - does the taxation report intend to give us more median figures? Or even distributions across sectors, etc?

Also are there any concrete figures on how the cost of pensions were factored in? Were the smaller number of core hours in the CS (compared to any private sector company I'm aware of) also taken into account (e.g. if the average private sector worked needed to do 37.5 hours vs 35 should they not get 7% more in their pay packet next to a PS/CS worker doing the same role?).

P. Breathnach

ixoy wrote: »

I find the Indo hilarious for its PS bashing and constant use of the industrial average wage against the PS wage. In a theoretical sense, you may have a point but in the sheer reality of number crunching something needs to be done.

Not just the Indo, but they are particularly awful.

I can only rely on my own experience on a like-for-like basis, but from the figures I'm aware of for a role equal to my own in the CS, the salaries are quite far even when the levy is taken into account. Yes it's anecdotal but I'm not sure how we're ever going to find out any other way - does the taxation report intend to give us more median figures? Or even distributions across sectors, etc?

The ESRI has a study that deals with like-for-like, and has made estimates of what is sometimes labelled the public sector premium. See
http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2691
Hot off the presses, an unusually restrained piece from the Indo, citing the study: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/public-sector-pay-must-fall-6pc-to-balance-books-1824504.html

Also are there any concrete figures on how the cost of pensions were factored in? Were the smaller number of core hours in the CS (compared to any private sector company I'm aware of) also taken into account (e.g. if the average private sector worked needed to do 37.5 hours vs 35 should they not get 7% more in their pay packet next to a PS/CS worker doing the same role?).

From memory, the second benchmarking body was asked to factor in the value of pensions and job security and put a value of 12% on them -- adjusting awards downward by that amount.

Dannyboy83

hobochris wrote: »

Here is a quick example comparing public and private sector pay:

My self and a friend, lets call her Z, graduated from the same class with honors degrees(same merit) in software development(computer science) both with zero commercial experience.

I went to work for a private sector company, Z joined the public sector.

We have the same title and same role: junior software developer.

After tax I clear about 1800 a month. Z clears about 2400 a month.

I had to take a 10% cut, my previous cleared wage was around 2000 a month.

Z's take home includes the levy's put on the public service.

Z has benefit's such as flexi time and pension and works a 37 hour week, I work a 42.5 hour week 9-5.30.

I have the constant worry that my employer will go bust and not be able to pay me, Z does not have such worries.

Now the public sector argument "I didn't benefit from the boom" Is Bull**** IMO, My pay in comparison to Z's proves this.

now a lot of Company directors may have benefited from the boom, but the only Joe soaps that did, were the ones in the public sector with benchmarking jacking up their pay.

If you compare other roles in the public sector with their private sector equivalent I'm sure you will find similar cases.

So please shut up with your whining and take your share of the pain like the rest of us.

I went for a public service job in 2006 in an IT position.

There were over 300 people attending the exams etc. for 1 position!
People of all colours, religions and races.
I've never seen anything like it & needless to say I didn't get it.

I think the most competitors I ever had for any job I've gotten in the private sector was about 10!

ronbyrne2005

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I went for a public service job in 2006 in an IT position.

There were over 300 people attending the exams etc. for 1 position!
People of all colours, religions and races.
I've never seen anything like it & needless to say I didn't get it.

I think the most competitors I ever had for any job I've gotten in the private sector was about 10!

Exactly, even during the boom people saw how much better off the Public sector was paid in terms of pay/pensions/conditions. I remember back in 2004 i was attending a test for a graduate position in public sector(got onto a panel but decided against the career later) and there was massive amount of people going for it as it paid so much more than the equivalent job in private sector with less stress etc. That same year i dropped a friend for clerical officer test in Croke Park and there were thousands attending for a few dozen jobs as the clerical officer position was so much better paid than private sector equivalent for doing same job.

irish_bob

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Exactly, even during the boom people saw how much better off the Public sector was paid in terms of pay/pensions/conditions. I remember back in 2004 i was attending a test for a graduate position in public sector(got onto a panel but decided against the career later) and there was massive amount of people going for it as it paid so much more than the equivalent job in private sector with less stress etc. That same year i dropped a friend for clerical officer test in Croke Park and there were thousands attending for a few dozen jobs as the clerical officer position was so much better paid than private sector equivalent for doing same job.

so much for the lies and spin from the PS and thier unions about taking a wage cut to enter the PS

Cuchulain

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I went for a public service job in 2006 in an IT position.

There were over 300 people attending the exams etc. for 1 position!
People of all colours, religions and races.
I've never seen anything like it & needless to say I didn't get it.

I think the most competitors I ever had for any job I've gotten in the private sector was about 10!

Wow I really think some people overexagerrate too much. Back in 2000 there were 3 IT jobs for a unnamed 3rd level college. These were 3 permanent position and the requirements were a diploma/ordinary degree and at least some experience. There were only 13 people shortlisted for the jobs. I had the bare minimum needed and still managed to get a job.

In my time here I have never seen more than 15 people for any job and the standard of applicants for recent IT jobs were nothing short of disgraceful.

All private sector people should realise that as a percentage the public service is higher qualified than the private sector, so its blatantly obvious that public servants pay will be higher.

Rosita

meglome wrote: »

Without starting another argument...

The people I work with from the civil service are all getting 50k plus, and they're not even management. The people I work with in the private sector very few of them indeed are getting that kind of money, even the managers. Obviously this is purely anecdotal and not very representative but the strong impression I'm getting is there's a sizeable pay differential. The average figures it seems don't tell us anything, although they don't look good.

So is there any way to really tell?

This is the kind of thing I don't understand. If you look at the civil service salary scales you'll see that you need to be a Higher Executive Officer (middle management - with the higher numbers of people traditionally below you) to earn 50k+. Yet you hear someone say "anecdotally" that they all seem to earn 50k+.

Similarly with teachers, I read in newspapers all the time that the average salary for teachers is 60k, yet if you examine their pay scales you'll find that this is in fact the maximum on the basic pay scale and it takes in the region of 25 increments to get there.

Although "averages" as a concept have managed to garner an awful lot of respect over the years, usually average figures appear to be nearly always meaningless and misleading and I suspect if they are not deliberately designed to be they are churned out by lazy commentators who have no interest in taking the time or effort to make meaningful comparisons.

Whatever average figures say, the owners of Mercs and Beamers that I tend to see are always from the private sector. The omission of the salaries of the really fat cats from such average figures makes sense to me from that point of view.

Rosita

Cuchulain wrote: »

All private sector people should realise that as a percentage the public service is higher qualified than the private sector, so its blatantly obvious that public servants pay will be higher.

This is a factor rarely given air but is very true. Public sector job applicants tend to be better educated and qualified because the initial barriers to entry are higher. You will get huge numbers of private sector workers who would be unemployable in the public sector.

Rosita

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I went for a public service job in 2006 in an IT position.

There were over 300 people attending the exams etc. for 1 position!
People of all colours, religions and races.
I've never seen anything like it & needless to say I didn't get it.

I think the most competitors I ever had for any job I've gotten in the private sector was about 10!

Then you obviously did not apply for those private sectors jobs in Spar or MacDonalds that were featured in the papers about six months ago when hundreds of people were applying.

Rosita

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Exactly, even during the boom people saw how much better off the Public sector was paid in terms of pay/pensions/conditions. I remember back in 2004 i was attending a test for a graduate position in public sector(got onto a panel but decided against the career later) and there was massive amount of people going for it as it paid so much more than the equivalent job in private sector with less stress etc. That same year i dropped a friend for clerical officer test in Croke Park and there were thousands attending for a few dozen jobs as the clerical officer position was so much better paid than private sector equivalent for doing same job.

A Clerical Officer in the Civil Service starts on 23k. They probably net about 1.5 times what some people can receive on the dole. Hardly the stuff of mega riches in fairness.

What does the equivalent earn in the private sector? It'd be nice if we could move past the anecdotal stuff.

ronbyrne2005

Rosita wrote: »

A Clerical Officer in the Civil Service starts on 23k. They probably net about 1.5 times what some people can receive on the dole. Hardly the stuff of mega riches in fairness.

What does the equivalent earn in the private sector? It'd be nice if we could move past the anecdotal stuff.

A private sector worker doing equivalent job might get 18k as they are only new and havent experience but the real difference comes in form of job security pension and all other perks of public sector(less hours, always paid for OT,loads uncertified sick days etc etc). Its only becasue our dole and public sector pay is so high that people think 23k aint a good wage . In most of EU 23k is great wage for a starter job.

irish_bob

Rosita wrote: »

This is a factor rarely given air but is very true. Public sector job applicants tend to be better educated and qualified because the initial barriers to entry are higher. You will get huge numbers of private sector workers who would be unemployable in the public sector.

the oppositie is true in my opinion considering thier are so many in the PS who do nothing but scratch thier arse all day

how do you explain the fact that public servants in the uk are just as well qualified as irish public servants yet dont get paid near as much

irish_bob

Rosita wrote: »

A Clerical Officer in the Civil Service starts on 23k. They probably net about 1.5 times what some people can receive on the dole. Hardly the stuff of mega riches in fairness.

What does the equivalent earn in the private sector? It'd be nice if we could move past the anecdotal stuff.

an often overlooked fact is that the wage difference between public and private is actually greatest at the lower levels so the equivelent of a clerical officer in the private sector would be on far less

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

the oppositie is true in my opinion considering thier are so many in the PS who do nothing but scratch thier arse all day...

Can you give more precise data, and cite a reliable source?

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

so much for the lies and spin from the PS and thier unions about taking a wage cut to enter the PS

How can you say that? I know people who could have gotten those jobs and wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

irish_bob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Can you give more precise data, and cite a reliable source?

try its says in the papers yesterday morning , some guy on 80 k a year spent five years reading the paper all day , why do you deny thier are spare pricks in the PS who have nothing to do , dont you know that when the old regional health boards merged to form the HSE , the 1st thing harney said was that no one would loose thier job , dogs in the street and all that

dresden8

irish_bob wrote: »

try its says in the papers yesterday morning , some guy on 80 k a year spent five years reading the paper all day , why do you deny thier are spare pricks in the PS who have nothing to do , dont you know that when the old regional health boards merged to form the HSE , the 1st thing harney said was that no one would loose thier job , dogs in the street and all that

Are you saying that PD free market economics aren't working?

Bloody free marketers!

Still waiting for answer to earlier question.

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

try its says in the papers yesterday morning , some guy on 80 k a year spent five years reading the paper all day , why do you deny thier are spare pricks in the PS who have nothing to do , dont you know that when the old regional health boards merged to form the HSE , the 1st thing harney said was that no one would loose thier job , dogs in the street and all that

So no actual evidence, then, other than hearsay anecdote?

Rosita

irish_bob wrote: »

try its says in the papers yesterday morning , some guy on 80 k a year spent five years reading the paper all day , why do you deny thier are spare pricks in the PS who have nothing to do , dont you know that when the old regional health boards merged to form the HSE , the 1st thing harney said was that no one would loose thier job , dogs in the street and all that

He must have been a very very slow reader if he spent all day for five years reading the paper.

Nobody is really denying that there are spare pricks with nothing to do in all walks of life. All is being asked for is that the discussion moves beyond cant and cliché garnered from half-baked newspaper report which can be souped up well when nobody is named or no actual evidence is required to back something up.

I work in a national newspaper and I can assure you that you should be more sceptical about what you read in the papers in July and August!

Rosita

irish_bob wrote: »

an often overlooked fact is that the wage difference between public and private is actually greatest at the lower levels so the equivelent of a clerical officer in the private sector would be on far less

What is your source for this "fact"?

Rosita

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

A private sector worker doing equivalent job might get 18k as they are only new and havent experience but the real difference comes in form of job security pension and all other perks of public sector(less hours, always paid for OT,loads uncertified sick days etc etc). Its only becasue our dole and public sector pay is so high that people think 23k aint a good wage . In most of EU 23k is great wage for a starter job.

Sorry, do you have an actual source for this (Civil Service payscales are a matter of public record) or did you just make up a figure less than the one I cited because "everyone knows" it to be true?

I don't know why people keep talking about "most of the EU" - so bloomin' what? 23k wouldn't qualify you to buy a kennel in Ireland.
It is terrible the stuff that bad and lazy journalists propagate with their "averages" and spurious coomparisons with "other countries in the EU" and we then have to read again and again as it is churned out by others as if it is original opinion.

dresden8

Rosita wrote: »

Sorry, do you have an actual source for this (Civil Service payscales are a matter of public record) or did you just make up a figure less than the one I cited because "everyone knows" it to be true?

Hey I asked for numerical verification first.

Bloody public servants asking private sector movers and shaker to back up their bull****.

How unreasonable are we?

Rosita

irish_bob wrote: »

how do you explain the fact that public servants in the uk are just as well qualified as irish public servants yet dont get paid near as much

I don't explain this "fact" at all. What happens in the UK is irrelevant. It's a different country, different tax system, different cost of living. Far better to compare like with like.

ronbyrne2005

Rosita wrote: »

Sorry, do you have an actual source for this (Civil Service payscales are a matter of public record) or did you just make up a figure less than the one I cited because "everyone knows" it to be true?

I don't know why people keep talking about "most of the EU" - so bloomin' what? 23k wouldn't qualify you to buy a kennel in Ireland.
It is terrible the stuff that bad and lazy journalists propagate with their "averages" and spurious coomparisons with "other countries in the EU" and we then have to read again and again as it is churned out by others as if it is original opinion.

Love, we are part of a monetary union with the EU and are a small open economy competing with rest EU. IF you dont see the consequences of everyone here being paid so much more than others in EU and everything here costing so much more then i wont even bother debating with you.