My outrage at some members of the public service

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

2003 report

Page 34

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2003.pdf

6,525 sat the exams for 1,060 clerical assignments.

A far cry from 80 to 1.

The same source, the same page

Total 41,448 3,146 1,920

20 per position in total in 2003!(pre-immigration)

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

The same source, the same page

20 per position in total in 2003!(pre-immigration)

Any stats for entry grade positions that excludes existing public servants going for promotion?

Promotion exams would ramp the ratio up.

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

That would include a lot of existing public servants going for promotion.

Who's cherrypicking now?

You
Why are you not looking on Administrative jobs, where salary was much lower then in public sector, but average was 40 applicants on position?

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

You
Why are you not looking on Administrative jobs, where salary was much lower then in public sector, but average was 40 applicants on position?

Explain

P. Breathnach

I don't think there is a useful comparison to be made between applications for public service jobs and private sector jobs. What is involved is terms of the applicant's mindset can be quite different.

I think there is general awareness that some people apply for public sector jobs simply because they are there, are not generally that awful to do, and can be regarded as a safety net in cause one does not get the desired college place, or the post-graduate programme, or the position as a trainee accountant, or whatever. So there are a number of not-really-serious-about-it applicants. A long time ago I applied for an EO position and got a good place in the competition but went to college instead. That was then, and I believe still is, a common pattern. If there were, say, 150 vacancies in a given year, they might have to work down about 1000 places on the list to fill all the positions.

I am sure that there is some duplication in the applicant numbers, where one person applies for more than one position. I am also sure that not all applicants are external: many promotions are contested in open competitions.

In effect, to borrow Scofflaw's word, this entire argument is bolloxology.

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

Explain

2003 23,672 for 373 positions
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2003.pdf
2004 0 applications 540 - Interviewed 538 - assigned, which means that promotions are not included into this statistics
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2004.pdf

2005 19,584 for 395
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2005.pdf
2006 14,307 for 349
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2006.pdf

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

2003 23,672 for 373 positions
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2003.pdf
2004 0 applications 540 - Interviewed 538 - assigned, which means that promotions are not included into this statistics
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2004.pdf

2005 19,584 for 395
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2005.pdf
2006 14,307 for 349
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2006.pdf

Me still not understand what you talking about willis.

Count Dooku

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think there is a useful comparison to be made between applications for public service jobs and private sector jobs. What is involved is terms of the applicant's mindset can be quite different.

I think there is general awareness that some people apply for public sector jobs simply because they are there, are not generally that awful to do, and can be regarded as a safety net in cause one does not get the desired college place, or the post-graduate programme, or the position as a trainee accountant, or whatever. So there are a number of not-really-serious-about-it applicants. A long time ago I applied for an EO position and got a good place in the competition but went to college instead. That was then, and I believe still is, a common pattern. If there were, say, 150 vacancies in a given year, they might have to work down about 1000 places on the list to fill all the positions.

I am sure that there is some duplication in the applicant numbers, where one person applies for more than one position. I am also sure that not all applicants are external: many promotions are contested in open competitions.

In effect, to borrow Scofflaw's word, this entire argument is bolloxology.

To make it shortly
We cannot believe any facts and figures, we must believe only PS workers that nobody wanted work in public sector
:rolleyes:

dresden8

Count Dooku wrote: »

To make it shortly
We cannot believe any facts and figures, we must believe only PS workers that nobody wanted work in public sector
:rolleyes:

Indeed. More union lies, they were breaking down the doors to get in.

P. Breathnach

Count Dooku wrote: »

2003 23,672 for 373 positions
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2003.pdf
2004 0 applications 540 - Interviewed 538 - assigned, which means that promotions are not included into this statistics
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2004.pdf

I don't think it means that. It is fairly common to form a panel in one year, and fill vacancies from that panel over a period of more than one year. I think it likely that the positions assigned in 2004 were filled by applicants from 2003.

S.L.F

Is it not also possible for 1 person to be applying for a range of jobs too.

That would also boost the numbers upwards

MysticalRain

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think there is a useful comparison to be made between applications for public service jobs and private sector jobs. What is involved is terms of the applicant's mindset can be quite different.

I think there is general awareness that some people apply for public sector jobs simply because they are there, are not generally that awful to do, and can be regarded as a safety net in cause one does not get the desired college place, or the post-graduate programme, or the position as a trainee accountant, or whatever. So there are a number of not-really-serious-about-it applicants. A long time ago I applied for an EO position and got a good place in the competition but went to college instead. That was then, and I believe still is, a common pattern. If there were, say, 150 vacancies in a given year, they might have to work down about 1000 places on the list to fill all the positions.

I am sure that there is some duplication in the applicant numbers, where one person applies for more than one position. I am also sure that not all applicants are external: many promotions are contested in open competitions.

In effect, to borrow Scofflaw's word, this entire argument is bolloxology.

Well if the public sector jobs that require an entrance exam are anything to go by, a person would have to be serious about applying just simply due to the amount of effort involved i.e. far more than would be the case for a typical private-sector job. I did the entrance exams myself and I certainly was serious about it at the time.

As for people applying multiple times...that could also apply to private sector companies as well.

Count Dooku

dresden8 wrote: »

That would include a lot of existing public servants going for promotion.

Overall employment in the Public Sector was 351,100 in December 2005, an increase of 5,800 compared with December 2004.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2005/psempearn_q42005.pdf

At the same time 68,550 applied for 4,704 positions, through PAS
Doesn't looks that it was too many promotions

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/an_report2005.pdf

Scofflaw

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well if the public sector jobs that require an entrance exam are anything to go by, a person would have to be serious about applying just simply due to the amount of effort involved i.e. far more than would be the case for a typical private-sector job. I did the entrance exams myself and I certainly was serious about it at the time.

As for people applying multiple times...that could also apply to private sector companies as well.

I think we can certainly argue ourselves blue in the face over exact numbers, but I also think that we can safely say that to claim there was or is "no interest in public sector jobs" is simply not true, and wasn't true during the boom either. There was, even taking into account the various possibilities raised by posters here, a healthy degree of interest in the positions that were available.

I appreciate dresden8 will disagree, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ardmacha

There was, even taking into account the various possibilities raised by posters here, a healthy degree of interest in the positions that were available.

Indeed. With all of this interest only above average persons were appointed, no doubt. Leaving the dross to run banks and the like.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think we can certainly argue ourselves blue in the face over exact numbers, but I also think that we can safely say that to claim there was or is "no interest in public sector jobs" is simply not true, and wasn't true during the boom either. There was, even taking into account the various possibilities raised by posters here, a healthy degree of interest in the positions that were available.

I appreciate dresden8 will disagree, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I never claimed there was no interest in public sector jobs.

The numbers show that during the early boom years there wasn't the huge demand that Dooku insists there was, it was not that highly prized a job. The notion that the public sector was practically impossible to get into is plainly wrong.

Especially at the clerical level that allegedly was overpaid by something like 26%, compared to the private sector equivalents. Allegedly.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

I never claimed there was no interest in public sector jobs.

The numbers show that during the early boom years there wasn't the huge demand that Dooku insists there was, it was not that highly prized a job. The notion that the public sector was practically impossible to get into is plainly wrong.

Especially at the clerical level that allegedly was overpaid by something like 26%, compared to the private sector equivalents. Allegedly.

I seem to recall you claiming exactly that, but if you're going to claim you didn't, there's obviously no point in arguing about it.

amused,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

I seem to recall you claiming exactly that, but if you're going to claim you didn't, there's obviously no point in arguing about it.

amused,
Scofflaw

If indeed you can find that alleged post I'll agree with you.

Fol20

PoleStar wrote: »

Just to clarify something, which is frequently forgotten, public sector workers have already taken a pay cut.

Yes it may be masquerading as the pension levy but lets look at this for a second. If it is truly a pension levy, it would be calculated on the part of your pay that contributes to your pension, fair is fair. And yet this is not the case. Despite the fact that for example overtime is NON pensionable, it is still taxed with the pension levy.

Ok so say a public sector worker has taken a pension opt out (as many have for example when they join the public sector with already exisiting pension funds), surely they wouldnt have to pay a PENSION levy if they are not going to receive one. Well yes they do, in fact, if you are merely entitled to the public sector pension then you pay the levy.

So yes the public sector has taken a pay cut. And while back at the time there was a alot of mumbling and grumbling about this, it was borne on the chin as public sector workers realised that the proverbial sh1t had hit the fan. And this, despite the fact that we chose the boring jobs that while have good conditions of employment, never offer the perks and potentials of the private sector. And the cuts were accepted despite the fact that it was the PRIVATE sector that caused the mess, institutions such as Bank of Ireland that has given a PAY RISE this year.

So go figure, the public sector is supposed to take FURTHER pay cuts, and via taxes, and NAMA, support the likes of the Banks, Banks who are giving their workers pay rises.

I dont think so.

Although i dont agree with banks,i also dont agree with "the private sector causing this problem"The government are meant to enforce legislation measures so that overborrowing doesnt happen:and well did they do this, i think its fair to say they didnt.Secondly and most importantly its gloabal economic factors that influenced or mess most

MysticalRain

ardmacha wrote: »

Indeed. With all of this interest only above average persons were appointed, no doubt. Leaving the dross to run banks and the like.

*ahem* lets not forget the people who were supposed to regulating the banks.

thebman

I have to say I think its complete wrong to claim public sector positions aren't highly valued.

When I graduated most of the class were talking and saying that they'd love to have a public sector job. One of my mates got a job in there and everyone was congratulating him and telling him how lucky he was. That was 2006. That was a degree in Computer Science.

My brother was looking to leave his job as a technical director at the top of a group of companies to try to get a job in a college as a professor because in his own words, they get crazy money for the level of responsibility they have. That was in 2007. He is still in his technical director role but working until 10PM most nights trying to keep the place going at this stage and sometimes later, all unpaid overtime.

I never understood the everyone said I was crazy to go into public sector people because I've ever heard anybody say that or even imply it in my entire live. I honestly think those people are just making it up to try to sway opinion on here.

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

I have to say I think its complete wrong to claim public sector positions aren't highly valued.

When I graduated most of the class were talking and saying that they'd love to have a public sector job. One of my mates got a job in there and everyone was congratulating him and telling him how lucky he was. That was 2006. That was a degree in Computer Science.

My brother was looking to leave his job as a technical director at the top of a group of companies to try to get a job in a college as a professor because in his own words, they get crazy money for the level of responsibility they have. That was in 2007. He is still in his technical director role but working until 10PM most nights trying to keep the place going at this stage and sometimes later, all unpaid overtime.

I never understood the everyone said I was crazy to go into public sector people because I've ever heard anybody say that or even imply it in my entire live. I honestly think those people are just making it up to try to sway opinion on here.

I'm afraid I agree entirely. I've never heard anyone ever say "the Civil Service? are you mad?". It's always been a matter for congratulations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

If indeed you can find that alleged post I'll agree with you.

It's OK - I don't need you to, which is probably just as well.

amused,
Scofflaw

thebman

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm afraid I agree entirely. I've never heard anyone ever say "the Civil Service? are you mad?". It's always been a matter for congratulations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exactly as has always been the case with anyone I know who got any job.

My mate didn't use his degree but went to work in a music shop because he prefers music to computers after doing well in the course.

Now some people thought he should put his degree to use but everyone was ultimately happy for him to work in an area he loved.

peter_de_tool

The fatal accident frequency rate in the UK is significantly higher amongst long distance truck drivers, agricultural, and construction workers than firemen. And almost half of firefighters who died on duty were due to heart failure. Firefighters are trained to not take any unnecessary risks, but accidents do happen.

Irish Firefighters are very well paid when compared to their UK counterparts, where Firefighters start training on £16,305 per annum (minimum) and become fully qualified after 4 years when their salary rises to £20,724 per annum. A chief fire officer (there are 58 of them within the UK) can earn between £65,000 - £95,000 per year

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's OK - I don't need you to, which is probably just as well.

amused,
Scofflaw

I didn't think so.

disappointed,
Dresden8

efb

PS didn't cause the recession???? Ever here of Benchmarking????

My PS friend was very dissapointed to learn she'd lost the high moral ground when she learned she earns more than I!!!!

My sister's a teacher and my brother is in the Hotel industry, one had six weeks enforsed upaid leave (with all his collegues) the other had over 12 weeks paid leave.

I know where I'll be standing on the 24th.

PS Pay, SW, and Child Benefit should be readjusted downward on Dec 9. And yes, I'll pay more tax too. I don't live in dreamland.

MaceFace

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm afraid I agree entirely. I've never heard anyone ever say "the Civil Service? are you mad?". It's always been a matter for congratulations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I will say it - the Civil Service? Are you mad?

Apart from the guaranteed job, good steady wages and lovely pot of gold at the end, why would you want to work there?

Seriously, as nice as money is, working in IT in the private sector - you are generally on the bleeding edge working on really cool stuff knowing that what you do makes a serious difference.

My perseption of working in IT in the PS is working on internal business systems or websites which isn't going to get your blood going.

Scofflaw

MaceFace wrote: »

I will say it - the Civil Service? Are you mad?

Apart from the guaranteed job, good steady wages and lovely pot of gold at the end, why would you want to work there?

Seriously, as nice as money is, working in IT in the private sector - you are generally on the bleeding edge working on really cool stuff knowing that what you do makes a serious difference.

My perseption of working in IT in the PS is working on internal business systems or websites which isn't going to get your blood going.

Oh, I wouldn't do it myself - not in a blind fit. I worked as a temporary junior in one government agency way back when, and I've done several contracts for the PS, and I know it's not for me - I've even done the PS exams (keeping my wife company), and the section I came closest to failing was the job simulations. This kind of thing - my reflexes are all wrong for them.

However, I've plenty of friends who have joined the PS (it's a pretty standard destination for scientists, at least if they want to stay in Ireland), and they were always happy to get the positions, and I've always been happy for them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

danman

I applied to my local authority in 2005. I would have jumped on the chance to join them. It was the only position that came up in my area of expertise.

I got 2nd on the list and never heard from them again. I knew at the time that the person that got the position would never have given up the chance to work in the PS. It's manna from heaven for my profession.

I've had friends and family who work in the PS, watching out for positions for the past 6 years, but only 1 position has become available.

To say that no one wanted to work in the PS during the boom, as the unions claim, is so untrue. I would have given my right arm, then and now, to work there. My job is very unstable, I work from contract to contract. The thought of having a full time position, holiday pay and pension has always been an attractive proposition to me.