Public sector earns 25pc more

jimmmy

WaltKowalski wrote: »

And I think that the wage I earn is fair.

With all due respect, most people think the wage they are on is fair. Our Taoiseach thinks it fair he is paid more than the prime ministers of the UK, Germany , France etc. Our head of the Irish central bank probably thinks its fair he is the highest paid central banker in the world - despite his failure in helping to regulate our banks / economy. I know a hospital consultant who is paid double what he would get as a consultant elsewhere in the EC- he presumably thinks it fair. A p.s. vet in Monaghan thinks it fair he is paid double what a p.s. vet ( who he went to college with ) across the border in N. Ireland is paid ( 100k versus 52 k ).
The change has to come from the top down. Cowen + McAleese should set the example. Before the country is sucked dry altogether.

doncarlos

jimmmy wrote: »

With all due respect, most people think the wage they are on is fair. Our Taoiseach thinks it fair he is paid more than the prime ministers of the UK, Germany , France etc. Our head of the Irish central bank probably thinks its fair he is the highest paid central banker in the world - despite his failure in helping to regulate our banks / economy. I know a hospital consultant who is paid double what he would get as a consultant elsewhere in the EC- he presumably thinks it fair. A p.s. vet in Monaghan thinks it fair he is paid double what a p.s. vet ( who he went to college with ) across the border in N. Ireland is paid ( 100k versus 52 k ).
The change has to come from the top down. Cowen + McAleese should set the example. Before the country is sucked dry altogether.

So you don't know what wages WaltKowalski is on, what she does for a living and yet you compare her to the Taoiseach and head of the Irish central bank for giving value for money? Then you list off people you "know" who are on astronomical wages. Are we supposed to believe someone that holds such biased views as yourself?

That is the problem in this country the entire public sector is being lumped together no matter if they are value for money or not. You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder about the public sector and would love nothing more to see thosands laid off indiscrimintily rather than try to come up with a better solution just to satisy your hatred.

optocynic

doncarlos wrote: »

So you don't know what wages WaltKowalski is on, what she does for a living and yet you compare her to the Taoiseach and head of the Irish central bank for giving value for money? Then you list off people you "know" who are on astronomical wages. Are we supposed to believe someone that holds such biased views as yourself?

That is the problem in this country the entire public sector is being lumped together no matter if they are value for money or not. You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder about the public sector and would love nothing more to see thosands laid off indiscrimintily rather than try to come up with a better solution just to satisy your hatred.

You may be right... but I would say that, considering what we pay our Public Sector... we are not getting value for money.

I personally do not want to see job cuts... ever...
But, in a bloated Private company, that is what happens.
Pay cuts... and job cuts...
While you may say the Public Sector are the 'easy' target... I would say they are the obvious first target... along with Welfare.

Time Magazine

Riskymove wrote: »

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)

"Global fact based assessment"? Does that actually mean anything, or is it just buzzwords?

I can pull out buzzwords too. It's a multivariate regression calculating the mean coefficient on a public sector dummy variable holding control variables constant by taking partial derivatives.

Translation: it's the standard statistical technique used across many disciplines and it is regularly used to investigate differences in wages of blacks and whites, immigrants and natives, and so on. The method is simply not in dispute. You can try and argue that things have changed since 2006, but this is a technique that has been in regular use since 1800.

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

You are wrong. Doing that returns a pay premium of 50%. But that is not the way to calculate these things. You need to take account of education, experience, hours worked, type of work, etc. I listed 15 things the ESRI study accounted for.

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

What it means is that people, having accounted for their gender, their education, their experience, the number of hours they work, the number of overtime hours they work, the number of night-shifts they work, whether or not they're in management positions, their union status, and their particular occupation, people in the public sector are still earning 25% more on average. We can also calculate the chances that this figure is there "by chance" -- it's less than 1 in 1,000. It's also backed up by previous reports by both ESRI staff and economists from Oxford and UCD.

The difference, on average, is 21.6%. They can break it down further than that. Specifically:
For the lowest 10% of earners, it's 30.8%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 29.1%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 27%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 24.3%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 22.4%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 19.8%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 16.4%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 13%
For the top 10% of earners, it's 7.8%

Can people please stop giving out about "averages"? This is a report that uses industry-standard technique that's been around for centuries. The reports are in line with other researchers who have tested the same thing with comparable (but different) data.

And for what it's worth, although the ESRI is a private body, they are part-funded by the State and their wages are very much in line with public sector equivalents. So this report is not something plucked out the air by a bunch of public-service bashers, either.

So, please, stop disagreeing with a robust statistical analysis because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe.

doncarlos

optocynic wrote: »

You may be right... but I would say that, considering what we pay our Public Sector... we are not getting value for money.

I personally do not want to see job cuts... ever...
But, in a bloated Private company, that is what happens.
Pay cuts... and job cuts...
While you may say the Public Sector are the 'easy' target... I would say they are the obvious first target... along with Welfare.

Hard to argue with anything in that post and it's probably going to happen. It's how it is implemented is going to be the tricky part.
You have some in the public sector, backed by the unions who are totally against it and some who realise it's a necessity and waiting to see what happens. No public servant is going to admit in public that they want their wages reduced or that they are earning too much, well apart from Jimmyyys "friends" who are all embarrassed about their wages

optocynic

doncarlos wrote: »

Hard to argue with anything in that post and it's probably going to happen. It's how it is implemented is going to be the tricky part.
You have some in the public sector, backed by the unions who are totally against it and some who realise it's a necessity and waiting to see what happens. No public servant is going to admit in public hat they want their wages reduced or that they are earning too much, well apart from Jimmyyys "friends" who are all embarrassed about their wages

Yep... there seems to be a rash of Public Sector people with integrity, all gravitating towards Jimmmy...

I'm not going to disagree with him though... there are a lot of 50 somethings.. doing the sqrt of FA each day... finishing early.. playing golf.. and benefiting from annual increments not based on adequate performance. Resulting in vulgar salaries!

ESRI report...
Public Sector week = 36 hrs
Private Sector week = 40 hrs..

jimmmy

doncarlos wrote: »

So you don't know what wages WaltKowalski is on, what she does for a living and yet you compare her to the Taoiseach and head of the Irish central bank for giving value for money?

I wrote "With all due respect, most people think the wage they are on is fair.". WaltKowalski is a public servant. I mention the Taoiseach and head of the Irish central bank because their salaries are known and well documented, ( just like the salaries of other prime ministers, presidents, central bankers etc ) and like the rest of the p.s. are out of line / higher than anywhere else in the known world. Do not forget we are a little country, with a population smaller than many cities in the world. Read what I wrote "The change has to come from the top down. Cowen + McAleese should set the example. Before the country is sucked dry altogether. "

Diarmuid

Time Magazine wrote: »

So, please, stop disagreeing with a robust statistical analysis because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe.

Dream on. :rolleyes:

doncarlos

optocynic wrote: »

I'm not going to disagree with him though... there are a lot of 50 somethings.. doing the sqrt of FA each day... finishing early.. playing golf.. and benefiting from annual increments not based on adequate performance. Resulting in vulgar salaries!

ESRI report...
Public Sector week = 36 hrs
Private Sector week = 40 hrs..

Who are these 50 somethings that do FA get to finish early every day?? We might be abolished with Bord Snip so must try to get a transfer to their department. It sounds great.

Riskymove

Time Magazine wrote: »

"Global fact based assessment"? Does that actually mean anything, or is it just buzzwords?

it meant something to me at the time but obviously i did not get my meaning across

What it means is that people, having accounted for their gender, their education, their experience, the number of hours they work, the number of overtime hours they work, the number of night-shifts they work, whether or not they're in management positions, their union status, and their particular occupation, people in the public sector are still earning 25% more on average.

my basic question still remains, now can they have compared a teacher or a guard to "their particular occupation" in the private sector

it seems to me from what you are syaing that you have two people; one private and one public

BOTH are the same gender, similar education and experience, work the same amount of hours and shift types etc

the finding is that the public person earns more than the private

it does not, in fact, compare public jobs with private comparable ones? is that right?

They can break it down further than that. Specifically:
For the lowest 10% of earners, it's 30.8%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 29.1%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 27%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 24.3%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 22.4%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 19.8%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 16.4%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 13%
For the top 10% of earners, it's 7.8%

its interesting to note that the difference drops as you move up earnings, thats counter to what many would claim

So this report is not something plucked out the air by a bunch of public-service bashers, either.

i did not say it was

So, please, stop disagreeing with a robust statistical analysis because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe.

I am not disagreeing with the report

ardmacha

For the lowest 10% of earners, it's 30.8%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 29.1%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 27%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 24.3%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 22.4%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 19.8%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 16.4%
For the next 10% of earners, it's 13%
For the top 10% of earners, it's 7.8%

its interesting to note that the difference drops as you move up earnings, thats counter to what many would claim

Indeed. Since the pension levy weighs more heavily on the top earners, they would already have lost almost all of the 7.8% difference.

optocynic

doncarlos wrote: »

Who are these 50 somethings that do FA get to finish early every day?? We might be abolished with Bord Snip so must try to get a transfer to their department. It sounds great.

I could name names... or I could simply mention my neighbour... drives a Fingal Count Council van.. and Every friday, there are 3 of those vans on my road, while they leave in a fourth on with golf clubs!

Don't be obtuse... we all know there are major skivers in the Public Sector.. and they tarnish the working few.

Rather than pay cuts.. I would love to see them all ejected!
It would probably save more!

mickman

i heard a great one recently.

this guy was working for fas, fas were goign to do a house extension for him (dont know how you get that but he did). so the local fas office got the job to extend it so he actually got paid from fas to build his own extensions which the govt paid for .

Riskymove

mickman wrote: »

i heard a great one recently.

this guy was working for fas, fas were goign to do a house extension for him (dont know how you get that but he did). so the local fas office got the job to extend it so he actually got paid from fas to build his own extensions which the govt paid for .

oh come on, can we stick to things we have some evidence for

are you really suggesting that FAS just pay for home extensions for staff?

doncarlos

So you went from

optocynic wrote: »

a lot

to

optocynic wrote: »

my neighbour

And you wonder why people in the public sector feel that they are all being tarred with the same brush?

nesf

Riskymove wrote: »

its interesting to note that the difference drops as you move up earnings, thats counter to what many would claim

It's not actually that surprising when you take a step back and think about it. We deliberately overpay in many areas to account for the nature of the job being difficult, i.e. Nurses, Gardaí and so on. If we paid these people purely based on hours and years of education done they'd be on far less.

Riskymove

nesf wrote: »

It's not actually that surprising when you take a step back and think about it. We deliberately overpay in many areas to account for the nature of the job being difficult, i.e. Nurses, Gardaí and so on. If we paid these people purely based on hours and years of education done they'd be on far less.

so are you suggesting that nurses and guards etc are in the lower % of earners and therefore have the biggest gaps because they are overpaid deliberately?

and if that is the case (i.e. deliberate overpay for specific reasons) why have studies like this which are almost guaranteed to show such gaps and thus whip up anger without putting forward the reasons why that gao is required?...why not exclude such jobs?

finally,

if they are deliberately overpaid, how can we use their pay gap as a justification to reduce wages?

optocynic

doncarlos wrote: »

So

And you wonder why people in the public sector feel that they are all being tarred with the same brush?

You asked for an example... I gave you one.
Don't throw your toys outta the pram!

nesf

Riskymove wrote: »

so are you suggesting that nurses and guards etc are in the lower % of earners and therefore have the biggest gaps because they are overpaid deliberately?

and if that is the case (i.e. deliberate overpay for specific reasons) why have studies like this which are almost guaranteed to show such gaps and thus whip up anger without putting forward the reasons why that gao is required?...why not exclude such jobs?

finally,

if they are deliberately overpaid, how can we use their pay gap as a justification to reduce wages?

Actually, disregard my point, they did control for occupation in the survey so this shouldn't be an issue (at least for nurses who have a private sector equivalent, I'm not sure what occupation is equivalent to a Garda though).

Riskymove

optocynic wrote: »

You asked for an example... I gave you one.
Don't throw your toys outta the pram!

agreed, all PS workers are aware of wasters

its a major issue and reform of public sector management to allow it to be tackled is badly needed

mickman

riskymove - there is evidence. i heard it from a family member of the person involved. the guy working in fas was seen to be in a back to work scheme so he was "entitled" to a house extension so they got him to build it himself, paid for everything and paid him to do it

seangal

The root cause to the pay rises was caused by GREED in the private sector be it shops or builder or bankers they are all private sector
They all got greedy and cause inflation to be running at 5% and workers be it private or public got pay agreement to match inflation.

WaltKowalski

Just wondering Mickman, Optocynic and Jimmmy if ye are working today?!
I don't have internet access at work.

Riskymove

mickman wrote: »

riskymove - there is evidence. i heard it from a family member of the person involved. the guy working in fas was seen to be in a back to work scheme so he was "entitled" to a house extension so they got him to build it himself, paid for everything and paid him to do it

this is changing slightly now


your saying he was entitled to get a house extension somehow??

but he built it himself so was paid instead of a builder?


its seem very strange but its a bit different to "FAS paying for extensions for staff"

mickman

listen .

i said he was a fella on a fas scheme. because he was on a fas scheme he applied to the govt for a house extension and they granted it. fas then were assigned to do the work, he works for fas so ended up being involved in the building of it

nesf

Riskymove wrote: »

if they are deliberately overpaid, how can we use their pay gap as a justification to reduce wages?

Actually on this point, the justification behind cutting wages falls under two broad headings:

1) We've a large deficit so we can't afford to pay the public sector wage bill at its current level.

2) Having any pay premium in the public sector is a really bad thing because it encourages wage inflation in the private sector which undermines competitiveness and the economy as a whole.


The second is a far more bitter pill to swallow than the first for public sector workers. It's unfortunately true though.

optocynic

WaltKowalski wrote: »

Just wondering Mickman, Optocynic and Jimmmy if ye are working today?!
I don't have internet access at work.

I am working at home... waiting to go to the airport for a meeting tomorrow!

seangal

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...

Get your facts right
i am a public sector worker and before any pension levy I was paying €120 a week in to my pension
And just to bring you up to date the PENSION LEVY is not going in to our pension it is going straight back to the dept of finance it was called a pension levy as at the time they said they could not do a pay cut

optocynic

Riskymove wrote: »

this is changing slightly now


your saying he was entitled to get a house extension somehow??

but he built it himself so was paid instead of a builder?


its seem very strange but its a bit different to "FAS paying for extensions for staff"

Actually, I don't see your point here. He was in FAS. He built his own extension, they paid for it.. and paid him to build it..

But, tell me... would you be surprised if "FAS paying for extensions for staff" was a headline in to morrow's paper? I know I wouldn't be.

Riskymove

mickman wrote: »

listen .

i said he was a fella on a fas scheme. because he was on a fas scheme he applied to the govt for a house extension and they granted it. fas then were assigned to do the work, he works for fas so ended up being involved in the building of it

I get it but why would the government pay for the extension on a house ?

I thought the only extensions they paid for were for the disabled/elderly etc