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
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    jetski wrote: »
    I work in public sector too. ill be quitting if i get another pay cut too. wont be worth my effort working for the money. its that simple.

    BTW, you don't get Jobseeker's Allowance if you walk out of a job. Rightly so.

    Public sector workers threatening to claim dole instead of working because it's not "worth your effort" only cements the stereotypical Sunday Independent-image of PS workers as lazy, greedy slobs. You're not doing yourself any favours taking that attitude tbh.


  • Options
    #63
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Time Magazine wrote: »
    BTW, you don't get Jobseeker's Allowance if you walk out of a job. Rightly so.

    If you're the sort of person who would claim dole instead of working because it's not "worth your effort", then there are plenty of names for you.

    "Public servant" isn't one of them.

    That, in my opinion, is getting a bit too personal.


  • Options
    #64
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    skelliser wrote: »
    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!

    I can recall private-sector workers queuing up by the thousands to do the civil service exams a few years back. I should know, I was one of them.

    I'm not one to bash the public service just for the hell of it. But I don't doubt there are some areas where some fat could be trimmed, like teachers, ESB workers, HSE bureaucrats and hospital consultants. Not to mention the so-called "public servants" we have in Dail Eireann.


  • Options
    #65
    spuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 797 ✭✭✭spuddy


    skelliser wrote: »
    ....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?

    Entry point salary figures are often quoted for public sector employees. But something I've always wondered was how many public service employees are actually on the entry point?

    How about a very simple exercise. Take one of the professions, for example teachers, and compare the numbers of those newly qualified, versus the numbers on entry point salaries. The two figures should be closely aligned if you follow the logic that those without experience start on the bottom rung.

    Does anyone know if this information is freely available?


  • Options
    #66
    oldyouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭oldyouth


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Neither condition applies. It's not good to base positions on factual inaccuracies.
    That's not really a full explanation. I wouldn't be aware of any private sector employee who has a full guarantee of their job and I think the only way you can lose a public sector job is by gross misconduct.

    I may be wrong in that, but generally it is the case that a lot of private sector workers would take a substantial salary hit to know that there job is secure for the next few years


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    I may be wrong in that, but generally it is the case that a lot of private sector workers would take a substantial salary hit to know that there job is secure for the next few years

    Mind you these people probably showed no interest in joining the public service when times were good, to secure this much vaunted security.

    Can I just throw a spanner in. Might there be a significant effect by 2006 of Eastern Europeans working below their level of qualification? You could have a gradaute working for a relatively poor wage in a shop.


  • Options
    #68
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    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

    Which public servants are we talking about here ? I know teachers who have been laid off.....


  • Options
    #69
    Trampas
    Registered Users Posts: 7,681 ✭✭✭Trampas


    spuddy wrote: »
    Entry point salary figures are often quoted for public sector employees. But something I've always wondered was how many public service employees are actually on the entry point?

    How about a very simple exercise. Take one of the professions, for example teachers, and compare the numbers of those newly qualified, versus the numbers on entry point salaries. The two figures should be closely aligned if you follow the logic that those without experience start on the bottom rung.

    Does anyone know if this information is freely available?

    Primary school teachers start on around 30k a year and before people start by saying they are all home by 3 o'clock watching Ricky Lake is wrong some will as you will get this in other professions while a lot of teachers will be correct copies, working on lessons plans, filling in reports etc some even use their own money to buy supplies for the classroom.


  • Options
    #70
    oldyouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,754 ✭✭✭oldyouth


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Which public servants are we talking about here ? I know teachers who have been laid off.....
    Permanent ones???


  • Options
    #71
    mickman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭mickman


    skelliser - really? do you think they will actually cut pay. the strikes will be crazy


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    rumour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    doncarlos wrote: »
    The pension levy is a paycut. That money is dead money that contributors will never see. The reason that a "levy" was introduced and not paycuts was that paycuts would result in existing PS retires having their pensions reduced.

    Think of it as working in a private company and given a company car. The company turns around and says ok we're not gonna cut your wages but we're going to charge you €200 a month for the use of the car whether you want it or not.

    Imagine that indeed, that is exactly what the government does and has been doing to private sector workers for years, never mind if you have to travel from one end of the country to the other often within a day.


  • Options
    #73
    mickman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭mickman


    Trampas wrote: »
    Primary school teachers start on around 30k a year and before people start by saying they are all home by 3 o'clock watching Ricky Lake is wrong some will as you will get this in other professions while a lot of teachers will be correct copies, working on lessons plans, filling in reports etc some even use their own money to buy supplies for the classroom.


    primary teachers start on 35k a year and more if they get a good honours degree. i know cos most of my family are teachers


  • Options
    #74
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    mickman wrote: »
    primary teachers start on 35k a year and more if they get a good honours degree. i know cos most of my family are teachers
    Wow. That's about 10 to 15 grand more than their counterparts in the private sector.


  • Options
    #75
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    oldyouth wrote: »
    I may be wrong in that, but generally it is the case that a lot of private sector workers would take a substantial salary hit to know that there job is secure for the next few years

    this ignores the fact that public sector wages have forgone increases to reflect their pension arrangments


  • Options
    #76
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    doncarlos wrote: »
    The pension levy is a paycut. That money is dead money that contributors will never see. The reason that a "levy" was introduced and not paycuts was that paycuts would result in existing PS retires having their pensions reduced.

    Think of it as working in a private company and given a company car. The company turns around and says ok we're not gonna cut your wages but we're going to charge you €200 a month for the use of the car whether you want it or not.

    Well, if that was the case... give them an option.
    Pension levy now... or no pension later...

    Like the private sector!!!!!

    Besides... have you seen the BIK we have to pay on our company cars????


  • Options
    #77
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Riskymove wrote: »
    I agree with your comments about benchmarking but I must once more point out an important fact when comparing benchmarking and this latest report

    benchmarking (allegedly) compared public sector jobs to a comparable job in the private sector

    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

    No one is asking for a blanket 25% cut in Public Sector pay (or at least I am not)... but, it does suggest, since it is an 'average'... that the Public Sector wage bill should be reduced by al least 20%..

    Then, lets sort out the joke that is Welfare..

    Up the pension...
    SLASH the dole!!!... especially for the 'long-term' unemployed.


  • Options
    #78
    joolsveer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭joolsveer


    optocynic wrote: »

    Besides... have you seen the BIK we have to pay on our company cars????

    What is a company car?


  • Options
    #79
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    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 ?

    I'm on your side.. I work (HARD) in the Private Sector.. and would love to see the Public Sector sliced and diced. But I'm not without compassion. Some Public Sector workers would be also hit hard!..

    The Ugly Truth!


  • Options
    #80
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    jetski wrote: »
    you just contradicted yourself mate.

    and yes they have already cut public sector pay.

    No they haven't!
    They asked high earners to voluntarily give a 10% cut..

    The rest was the pension levy... and that is not a cut!


  • Options
    #81
    doncarlos
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭doncarlos


    optocynic wrote: »
    Well, if that was the case... give them an option.
    Pension levy now... or no pension later...

    Like the private sector!!!!!

    I've no problems with that. People should be given the option to opt out. I doubt that too many people would but it'd be money saved by the government.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    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)

    There are very few jobs remaining in the modern world that are the same as they were 5 years ago... never mind 20 years.
    An old Public Sector worker.. will offer some experience.. but mostly will just protect the status quo... and not embrace change and modern business...
    Why would they.. with annual increments.. and no incentive!


  • Options
    #83
    doncarlos
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭doncarlos


    optocynic wrote: »
    No they haven't!
    They asked high earners to voluntarily give a 10% cut..

    The rest was the pension levy... and that is not a cut!

    Why do you keep saying its not a cut?

    I get less money in my wages and get the exact same benefits how is that not a paycut?


  • Options
    #84
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    doncarlos wrote: »
    Why do you keep saying its not a cut?

    I get less money in my wages and get the exact same benefits how is that not a paycut?
    Because the money you are "not getting now" you will get later, multiplied, in the form of your pension. Your pension is still subsidised.


  • Options
    #85
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    doncarlos wrote: »
    Why do you keep saying its not a cut?

    I get less money in my wages and get the exact same benefits how is that not a paycut?

    You are being asked to contribute to a guatanteed pension scheme.
    Something that the rest of us have never had.. and a lot of ordinary retirees are suffering for now..

    It was hugely unfair for the Public Sector to get large and safe pensions.. large and safe salaries... large and guaranteed annual increases.. all at the tax payers expense... and while delivering a below par service (in some areas)

    I do feel your pain.. since it is now affecting you.. but do you not care about the private sector workers... paying taxes?


  • Options
    #86
    WaltKowalski
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭WaltKowalski


    Such a sensational headline - 25% more!

    Of course the average hourly wage is higher when the likes of teachers wages and senior management pay are included.

    I am a civil servant, working in a low level position.

    When I joined the civil service, a few years ago, many thought the job was beneath me! Now the same people begrudge me my "permanent job".

    My net pay is down €300 a month on last year.
    I pay more in contributions towards my pension than many friends who work in the private sector - with less entitlements on retirement after 40 years of service.
    I pay tax and prsi. I pay for private health insurance.

    I am an efficient and productive employee.
    Not all my colleagues are.

    After I pay my mortgage, I am struggling to pay other bills. I regret buying a home when I did - if hindsight was foresight etc...

    I have no discretionary income.

    I am constantly busy at work - under pressure a lot of the time.

    As in a lot of businesses - those higher up the ladder, and the pay scale, do less. A lot less. There is so much senior management in the organisation that I work in and I couldn't tell you what most of them do but I do know that they don't fairly earn their pay in the same way I do, and they don't merit it.

    The organisation structure is definitely top heavy.

    Now, many of the top earners are taking advantage of the incentivised early retirement scheme announced in the last budget. They can afford to. They've been riding the waves of massive pay for the last few years, can now retire early, and avoid paying some tax that they would have had to pay if they retired this time last year and that I will have to pay when I retire.

    It's probably the same in a lot of departments.

    Please don't tar every civil servant with the same brush. Those in the front line, that you see at public counters and speak to on the phone, who do their job well, earn and deserve their pay.


  • Options
    #87
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    WaltKowalski wrote: »
    Please don't tar every civil servant with the same brush. Those in the front line, that you see at public counters and speak to on the phone, who do their job well, earn and deserve their pay.

    As do the people in the Private Sector.. except they have already taken heavy pay cuts... have huge BIK on any of the benefits (if any remain).. and are working in a rapidly shrinking market, with radidly diminishing job security..

    They have no guaranteed pension.. no social partnership pay increases (Farce)..

    We are all in the same boat... but the Public Sector seem to think they don't have to row with the rest of us.. that we can carry them..
    I know it is not all of them... but your unions are not helping you!!


  • Options
    #88
    doncarlos
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭doncarlos


    jimmmy wrote: »
    Because the money you are "not getting now" you will get later, multiplied, in the form of your pension. Your pension is still subsidised.

    You don't seem to understand, I wont get it later.

    I'll be getting the exact same pension but now I'm paying more for it.
    optocynic wrote: »
    You are being asked to contribute to a guatanteed pension scheme.
    Something that the rest of us have never had.. and a lot of ordinary retirees are suffering for now..
    I am being asked to contribute more. I already paid towards my pension before the levy. Yes the pension levy is a kick in the nuts but it is necessary. I'm just trying to explain that no matter what way you dress it up it's still a pay cut.
    optocynic wrote: »
    It was hugely unfair for the Public Sector to get large and safe pensions..
    Maybe, but this was needed along with Job security to entice staff to work in the public sector where wages were up until very recently far lower than than the private sector.
    optocynic wrote: »
    large and safe salaries...
    Safe yes, large no. Like I said previously up until recently private sector wages were far higher in the private and sector.
    optocynic wrote: »
    large and guaranteed annual increases.. all at the tax payers expense... and while delivering a below par service (in some areas)

    This is a fair point and something that the government should be looking at. Annual increases should be based on performance. In My section there are plenty of people that work their arses off and are well deserving getting increases but there was one guy in the section that did sweet FA and got the annual increase the same as everyone else. Thankfully he is no longer in the section but these are the people that need to be targeted.
    Voluntary redundancies should be offered to anybody with 20 years or more service. This would drastically reduce the public sector wage payments for a one off payment.


  • Options
    #89
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    optocynic wrote: »
    but, it does suggest, since it is an 'average'... that the Public Sector wage bill should be reduced by al least 20%..

    actually, the fact that its an average is a reason for not acting on it rather than acting on it!! (especially as someone mentioned its a survey of 32,000 people rather than a global fact based assesment)

    totalling all wages of all public servants and dividing by the number of them (say 330,000) gets you a figure

    totalling all private sector wages and doing likewise (say 1.8m) gives you another

    one is 25% higher than the other, but such a figure means little on its own

    it does not mean that a public sector teacher is 25% higher than the private sector comparable job and so on

    we all know cuts are coming, most likely an expansion of the pension levy but 20%? not gonna happen

    Then, lets sort out the joke that is Welfare..

    Up the pension...
    SLASH the dole!!!... especially for the 'long-term' unemployed

    I think we all know the welfare bill will be cut too, like the public sector pay bill, it has to be reduced


  • Options
    #90
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭optocynic


    doncarlos wrote: »
    You don't seem to understand, I wont get it later.

    I'll be getting the exact same pension but now I'm paying more for it.


    I am being asked to contribute more. I already paid towards my pension before the levy. Yes the pension levy is a kick in the nuts but it is necessary. I'm just trying to explain that no matter what way you dress it up it's still a pay cut.


    Maybe, but this was needed along with Job security to entice staff to work in the public sector where wages were up until very recently far lower than than the private sector.


    Safe yes, large no. Like I said previously up until recently private sector wages were far higher in the private and sector.



    This is a fair point and something that the government should be looking at. Annual increases should be based on performance. In My section there are plenty of people that work their arses off and are well deserving getting increases but there was one guy in the section that did sweet FA and got the annual increase the same as everyone else. Thankfully he is no longer in the section but these are the people that need to be targeted.
    Voluntary redundancies should be offered to anybody with 20 years or more service. This would drastically reduce the public sector wage payments for a one off payment.

    I agree with the redundancies to the oldtimers... and I am a big believer in letting the young lead the way. However, performance needs to be properly monitored... and rewarded when suitable... and punished when standars are not met... but alas.. the 'Unemployable f*ckin' headbangers' in the unions (according to the legend O'Leary)... would never let such rational accountability into the Public Sector.

    I still do not think the levy as a pay cut. It was a fair balancing of a ludicrously large perk in the Public Sector...

    And as for the fabled low pay in the Public Sector... pull the other one... *ding-a-ling*...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    WaltKowalski
    Registered Users Posts: 489 ✭✭WaltKowalski


    optocynic wrote: »
    As do the people in the Private Sector.. except they have already taken heavy pay cuts... have huge BIK on any of the benefits (if any remain).. and are working in a rapidly shrinking market, with radidly diminishing job security..

    They have no guaranteed pension.. no social partnership pay increases (Farce)..

    We are all in the same boat... but the Public Sector seem to think they don't have to row with the rest of us.. that we can carry them..
    I know it is not all of them... but your unions are not helping you!!

    I am actually embarrassed by my trade union - but am fearful to quit in case strike action is eventually called on - which I really hope it never is. I cringe every time I hear a union representative being interviewed or read another aggressive article. I wish they'd focus on the positive aspects of the service - like my monthly return!

    I do not have a guaranteed pension! There is nothing written anywhere that guarantees me my pension.

    I think our situation now provides a great opportunity to overhaul the whole of the public service. As everyone is learning to tighten their belts - so too should the institutions which seem to have such a lax level of financial accountability.

    You pay tax on your benefit in kind because it is a type of income and is treated as such - the same way as all income is taxed. I find that fair!

    I am very aware of the problems facing private sector employees. My partner, who worked as a professional in the construction industry, has not been in full time employment since February of last year.

    When he was working, and driving a company car, he had no problem when the company he worked for were charging the OPW over the odds for their services. Now, he complains about the system he was more than happy to take advantage of, while waiting for his relatively generous unemployment benefit!

    The whole system, from T.D.s pay to child benefit needs an overhaul. Personally, I don't think someone who has no big outgoings (mortgage, children) should receive the same amount of benefit as those that do. A lot more should be means tested - even though I know that when my partners stamps run out, if he hasn't found a job in the mean time, his entitlement will be based on a means test (based on my income, as we live together), his social welfare income will drastically decrease. I think means testing is fair. And I think that the wage I earn is fair.


Advertisement