Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Public sector earns 25pc more

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    jetski
    Registered Users Posts: 820 ✭✭✭jetski


    jimmmy wrote: »
    I am never pleased to see people struggling ; however, the greater good of the country would be served if our public service were not the highest paid in the known world....if their wages came down to realistic levels then I think less people will struggle in the long run.


    its making the p.s. happy, thats all. And those retired from the p.s., who got the tax free windfall and 50% pension.


    You really are a dumb F*ck, i hope u know that. you dont have a breeze about what ur talking about.


  • Options
    #33
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    jetski wrote: »
    You really are a dumb F*ck, i hope u know that. you dont have a breeze about what ur talking about.

    That's overstating it, although not by much. Take jimmmy seriously whenever he learns to back up what he says. I am waiting for a citation in support of his last big claim.


  • Options
    #34
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Riskymove wrote: »
    this latest report (and most like it) are based on an average of ALL public sector jobs and ALL private sector jobs.

    the 2 systems are never going to produce similar results and cannot really be compared..not that it stops the media from doing so
    Not according to the article:
    The main differences in the new study are that it takes pensions into account and that it "drills down" deeper into more direct comparisons between employees in the two sectors. This allows for closer assessment of the extent to which wage differentials have changed over the three years.


  • Options
    #35
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    tunney wrote: »
    Perfect, pay reductions and head count cuts!
    That should really help the retailers & restaurants this Christmas.


  • Options
    #36
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    optocynic wrote: »
    the lower earners cannot affort to take that 25% hit, they have built lives around earning what they currently get, and some even count on the annual guaranteed increase!

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, lower earners in the private sector can't afford to take the "take it or leave it" pay reductions or reduced hours or layoffs, having "built lives around earning what they currently get"...

    The reason ? Those paying the wages can't afford to.

    And we're the ones paying the wages of the public sector, so that equally applies.

    So your point is ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Trampas
    Registered Users Posts: 7,681 ✭✭✭Trampas


    Unless the figures are published I would be taking this report with a pinch of salt.

    Someone in the public sector for 20+ years and someone there 6 months will be on different wages and the report doesn't take this into account.

    The public sector needs to get rid of the people in there decades cause you will probably find they are getting paid a fortune and could be easily replaced by someone on about 1/2 or a 1/3 of their wage.


  • Options
    #38
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Trampas wrote: »
    Unless the figures are published I would be taking this report with a pinch of salt.

    Someone in the public sector for 20+ years and someone there 6 months will be on different wages and the report doesn't take this into account.

    The public sector needs to get rid of the people in there decades cause you will probably find they are getting paid a fortune and could be easily replaced by someone on about 1/2 or a 1/3 of their wage.

    The ESRI report will be published. The part to take with a pinch of salt is the comment by the journalist.


  • Options
    #39
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Trampas wrote: »

    Someone in the public sector for 20+ years and someone there 6 months will be on different wages

    Why? - surely they should get paid the same if they are doing the same job (assuming they have the same qualifications and experience). I can see an argument for a small premium for loyalty, but if people get paid more simply for years of service this highlights even more the problems with the current arrangements


  • Options
    #40
    mickman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭mickman


    guys in all fairness. the current govt dosent have the guts to cut public sector pay. if they had why dont they have it done already, the strikes would be out of the way by now.

    do ye honestly think they will cut another 10%


  • Options
    #41
    skelliser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser


    Beasty wrote: »
    Why? - surely they should get paid the same if they are doing the same job (assuming they have the same qualifications and experience)

    lol! clutching at straws there man, how can someone in a job 6 months have the same experience as someone there 20+ years!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    jetski
    Registered Users Posts: 820 ✭✭✭jetski


    you just contradicted yourself mate.

    and yes they have already cut public sector pay.


  • Options
    #43
    Ally Dick
    Registered Users Posts: 12,708 ✭✭✭✭Ally Dick


    You can thank Bertie Ahern for this mess. He awarded 20% benchmarking to the public service. That goes some way to explaining the 25% in the latest survey


  • Options
    #44
    skelliser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser


    mickman wrote: »
    do ye honestly think they will cut another 10%

    i reckon they will go for a sliding scale of 8%, something similar to the pension levy PAYCUT.
    cut the dole and community employment schemes, double payments to the same levels probably around ~190euro. child benefit will be taxed.


  • Options
    #45
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    skelliser wrote: »
    lol! clutching at straws there man, how can someone in a job 6 months have the same experience as someone there 20+ years!
    Someone who has done a similar job in the private sector and gained the necessary experience there (and the necessary levels of experience can vary enormously from job to job)


  • Options
    #46
    skelliser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser


    Beasty wrote: »
    Someone who has done a similar job in the private sector and gained the necessary experience there (and the necessary levels of experience can vary enormously from job to job)

    oh right, i remember now all those private sector people queing up in there thousands during the boom years to get into the public service. lol!
    outta my way ps worker im from the private sector!


  • Options
    #47
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    optocynic wrote: »
    The pension levy was NOT a pay cut... they are simply being asked to contribute to their guaranteed pension.
    Like the rest of us private sector saps do, and have done for decades.
    If you are getting it in the future, it is not a cut... it is a deferal!

    No one in the private sector want the (productive) lower earners pay cut...
    We are not obtuse monsters...
    We simply want a good vcalue for money public service.. and the fabled social partnership we heard so much about from O'Connor...

    perhaps we dont want those at the bottom to see wage cuts but we need to see a shed load of them let go


  • Options
    #48
    jetski
    Registered Users Posts: 820 ✭✭✭jetski


    apperantly its going to be 10% over 3 years....


  • Options
    #49
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    nesf wrote: »
    The ESRI report will be published. The part to take with a pinch of salt is the comment by the journalist.

    the part to take with a pinch of salt is the figure of 25% pay differential they came up with , this figure is based on what was happening before the bust , the figure now is most likely closer to 40%


  • Options
    #50
    podge3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭podge3


    Ally Dick wrote: »
    He awarded 20% benchmarking to the public service. That goes some way to explaining the 25% in the latest survey
    No actually, he didn't.

    You obviously source your facts from the same place as Jiimmmyyyy.


  • Options
    #51
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    EF wrote: »
    Given the fact that these figures are 3 years old now and things have changed so much in both the private and public sector, is there any value at all in this report? Surely it cannot be relied upon to justify anything
    Things have not changed all that much in the past three years. Public sector pay increased by about 6% in 2008, and then the pension levy essentially removed that. Private sector pay increased over the past three years, then the recession pretty much removed that. 25% is as good a rough figure as you'll get.
    jimmmy wrote: »
    There was another report a few months ago showing public sector pay 50% more than private sector pay....this took in to account the shorter working week of the average public sector worker, the number of hours worked per year etc.
    The 50% report was using statistics so simplistic it was misleading. It took into account the hours worked but not education, experience, whether the position is supervisory, etc.
    joolsveer wrote: »
    I had a look at the link but there are no figures in it to justify the claim made in the headline. Who are they comparing? If you compare salaries of the public service from porter to CEO with people employed on the "factory floor" you will always get a disparity. I would like to see the underlying statistics first before coming to a conclusion.

    I am not employed in the public service.
    It uses data on 32,000 people both public and private. The paper is here. You'll need a good training in economics/statistics to understand it so I'll provide a rough summary. It controls for and captures the effect of:
    1. Public Sector/Private sector
    2. Gender
    3. Experience
    4. Experience squared (going from 1-2 years' experience is more beneficial than 21-22)
    5. Lower Secondary Education
    6. Higher Secondary
    7. Post Secondary
    8. Third-Level Non-Degree
    9. Third-Level Degree
    10. Supervisor
    11. Professional Body Member
    12. Shift-work
    13. Weekly Hours
    14. Overtime Hours
    15. Type of work
    jimmmy wrote: »
    Pity they did not base them on 2009 earnings, and factor in the differences in hours worked etc.
    They did factor in hours worked.
    optocynic wrote: »
    The pension levy was NOT a pay cut.
    Yes it was.
    Deadalus wrote: »
    This is complete fiction from my experience... This article is complete rubbish.
    It uses data from tens of thousands of people and controls for just about everything you could imagine - type of work, education, experience, hours worked, union membership, etc. No offence, but I take this as hard-evidence and your experience as an anecdote. My personal anecdote, having been employed by both a State agency and a semi-State body, is that pay here far exceeds the private sector. Graduate level economist jobs start on €34k in the public sector with job security and a €3k increase every year. My best friend tells me Bank of Ireland's highest entry graduate wage is €30k, on an eighteen month contract, with (rightly) no pay increases for anyone because of the state of the company. And Bank of Ireland aren't exactly scabby with wages.
    Riskymove wrote: »
    the 2 systems are never going to produce similar results and cannot really be compared..not that it stops the media from doing so
    Everything I can think of that might make a difference (listed above) is controlled for.
    Trampas wrote: »
    Unless the figures are published I would be taking this report with a pinch of salt.
    Link provided above.
    Someone in the public sector for 20+ years and someone there 6 months will be on different wages and the report doesn't take this into account.
    Yes it does.
    jetski wrote: »
    and yes they have already cut public sector pay.
    Yep, they cut it by about 7%. But the difference is 25%, so it's foolish to imagine that the levy is some sort of cure.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ifconfig
    Registered Users Posts: 880 ✭✭✭ifconfig


    I didn't read every post on this thread but...

    About the pension levy - I remember some wise hoor telling me that there was an advantage to the employee in them making it a levy rather than a straight paycut of equivalent amount. It means that it doesn't count as a subtraction from your gross salary amount which is used to calculate your public service pension lump sum and annuities or whatever.

    I'm not a public servant myself.

    I do have a general feeling that benchmarking boosted middle manager types in the public service with amounts that were taken on a snapshot while the dot-com bubble salaries (which were shortlived) were still around in the private sector for the "manager mountain" and mid-ranking and senior IT folks.


  • Options
    #53
    skelliser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser


    jetski wrote: »
    apperantly its going to be 10% over 3 years....

    were did ya hear this, probably palitable enough, no sudden shock like.


  • Options
    #54
    Hootanany
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    They will be whinging again cast iron pensions pah


  • Options
    #55
    oldyouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭oldyouth


    Bottom line here is that you can never really compare public service to private service as long as there is 100% job security for one and 100% job uncertainty for the other


  • Options
    #56
    skelliser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭skelliser


    and one effectively has little career prospects whilst the other the sky is the limit.


  • Options
    #57
    Senna
    Registered Users Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    Glad to see there are a few PS employees willing to walk rather than take a paycut. Dont tell my employer but unless they cut my wages by 50%, i would have to grin and bear it, its not nice, but I have to be realistic. If my wages remain above the level of dole then how would i have a choice.

    All this talk of pay cuts just shows how spineless FF are, unless we have performance related job cuts the PS will remain bloated, the number of employee is the problem.


  • Options
    #58
    podge3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭podge3


    If any of the "experts" really want to quote facts about benchmarking, have a read of this.

    Unfortunately there are no pictures and the writing is a little small so some of those same individuals may have trouble analysing the facts.

    If you do manage to pick through the report, you will find that the average award was 8.9%. This "average" is greatly skewed by the, frankly, horrendous awards for some of the the higher ranks across the CS & PS. The highest I can find is 16% but there may be higher.

    So while the "average" is 8.9%, large bands got a lot less e.g. the lower grades in the Army & Gardai only got 4% and 5% respectively.


  • Options
    #59
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    skelliser wrote: »
    the pension levy was a paycut, plain and simple for the people i know in the ps it was a simple paycut.

    I dont work in the public service. This article however says that the lower grades are were the gap is widest. Here we go again, massaging the public, especially lower paid for the upcoming cuts in the budget.

    the entry point for a clerical officer is €23,174. Is the ESRI suggesting that clerical staff in the private sector are working for €15,450?

    YES, better than no job at all.


  • Options
    #60
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    oldyouth wrote: »
    Bottom line here is that you can never really compare public service to private service as long as there is 100% job security for one and 100% job uncertainty for the other

    Neither condition applies. It's not good to base positions on factual inaccuracies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    Time Magazine wrote: »
    .

    Yes it does.

    quote]

    Here is the final paragraph of the report.
    Finally, it is important to note that despite adjusting our data for differences in pension coverage, it is likely that our estimates of the public- private sector pay differential will still contain a downward bias. This is due to the fact that the current study makes no adjustment for the higher relative value of public sector pensions, nor does it make any assessment of the potential value of increased job security within the public sector53 or variations in the number of days worked between both sectors. Furthermore, a number of additional payments have taken place under the various wage determination mechanisms discussed that fall outside the data capture period of this study. While these factors will be counteracted, to some extent, by a higher proportion of private sector workers receiving benefit-in-kind,54 it is still likely that the public-private sector pay gap estimates derived in this paper are biased downwards

    Which adds to your well presented information.


Advertisement