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

The Reality in the Private Sector

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ardmacha wrote: »
    What else do you expect from a private sector organ?

    I'm sure I'd rather not say...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #63
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    nesf wrote: »
    The Private Sector is huge and is very heterogeneous. Some parts of it will be hit extremely hard while others won't be..
    Popular thinking among the kind of people who pay for the 'Independent' is to compare the public sector to the worst-off bits of the private sector.


  • Options
    #64
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    NewDubliner wrote: »
    Popular thinking among the kind of people who pay for the 'Independent' is to compare the public sector to the worst-off bits of the private sector.

    My thoughts exactly. There seems to be frenzied calls for another round of benchmarking but the averages have not changed all that much. Finance and insurance workers seem to be the ones taking the biggest hits, but at 973 per week they are not doing too badly.


  • Options
    #65
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    EF wrote: »
    My thoughts exactly. There seems to be frenzied calls for another round of benchmarking but the averages have not changed all that much. Finance and insurance workers seem to be the ones taking the biggest hits, but at 973 per week they are not doing too badly.

    There's been a 10% loss of jobs in the Industrial sector, how on Earth has there been not much change on the averages?


  • Options
    #66
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    nesf wrote: »
    There's been a 10% loss of jobs in the Industrial sector, how on Earth has there been not much change on the averages?

    They have lost their jobs. The averages amongst those working has not changed all that much. I have every sympathy for those who have lost their jobs, dont get me wrong, but are we going to benchmark the public service against those who are still in their jobs and working or will benchmarking have to include an unemployment levy of sorts to account for the loss of jobs in the private sector?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    seclachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 510 ✭✭✭seclachi


    EF wrote: »
    They have lost their jobs. The averages amongst those working has not changed all that much. I have every sympathy for those who have lost their jobs, dont get me wrong, but are we going to benchmark the public service against those who are still in their jobs and working or will benchmarking have to include an unemployment levy of sorts to account for the loss of jobs in the private sector?

    Maybe the simplest way would be to cut 10% of the public service so then ?

    Benchmarking against private sector pay is all well and good when there is the money for it. But at the end of the day almost every single private sector worker is getting what there company can afford. On the other hand the government has a 20 billion euro deficit and it simply cant be made up by taxes (Esp in such a poor economy).

    Its not fair for public sector workers to take a paycut, but neither is it fair for all the private sector workers who have been sacked or had there wages cut.


  • Options
    #68
    kaymin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭kaymin


    EF wrote: »
    They have lost their jobs. The averages amongst those working has not changed all that much. I have every sympathy for those who have lost their jobs, dont get me wrong, but are we going to benchmark the public service against those who are still in their jobs and working or will benchmarking have to include an unemployment levy of sorts to account for the loss of jobs in the private sector?

    Why not start with letting go 10% of the public service workers (to mirror the loss of jobs in the private sector) and reduce public service pay to the private sector equivalents (i.e. 20 - 26% drop)?


  • Options
    #69
    jimmmy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    kaymin wrote: »
    Why not start with letting go 10% of the public service workers (to mirror the loss of jobs in the private sector) and reduce public service pay to the private sector equivalents (i.e. 20 - 26% drop)?

    Sounds like a reasonable compromise, as our public service is paid 40% more than the eurozone average ( Eurostat figures ).


  • Options
    #70
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    EF wrote: »
    They have lost their jobs. The averages amongst those working has not changed all that much. I have every sympathy for those who have lost their jobs, dont get me wrong, but are we going to benchmark the public service against those who are still in their jobs and working or will benchmarking have to include an unemployment levy of sorts to account for the loss of jobs in the private sector?

    Well yes - the unemployed are still part of the private sector labour pool. Otherwise, you're suggesting you'd be OK with the idea that if the private sector fired the lowest paid 10%, and average wages therefore rose (which seems to have happened in some areas), you'd like to be benchmarked against that rise. While it would be hard to find something that would be perceived as more outrageous than the original benchmarking exercise, that would probably do it. It does it for me, certainly.

    appalled,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #71
    johnathan woss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭johnathan woss


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Well yes - the unemployed are still part of the private sector labour pool. Otherwise, you're suggesting you'd be OK with the idea that if the private sector fired the lowest paid 10%, and average wages therefore rose (which seems to have happened in some areas), you'd like to be benchmarked against that rise. While it would be hard to find something that would be perceived as more outrageous than the original benchmarking exercise, that would probably do it. It does it for me, certainly.

    appalled,
    Scofflaw

    Are you a lawyer Scofflaw ?
    Are you a barrister ?

    Because very little outrages me more than the amount of wealth the barrister class have siphoned off the people of Ireland in the last 20 years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    johnathan woss wrote: »
    Are you a lawyer Scofflaw ?
    Are you a barrister ?

    Because very little outrages me more than the amount of wealth the barrister class have siphoned off the people of Ireland in the last 20 years.

    He's neither of these things. I'm not going to reveal his profession but I do know what it is and he is not in one that's been minting it over the past decade.


  • Options
    #73
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    johnathan woss wrote: »
    Are you a lawyer Scofflaw ?
    Are you a barrister ?

    Because very little outrages me more than the amount of wealth the barrister class have siphoned off the people of Ireland in the last 20 years.

    I'm not either of those, and I'm well aware of the way the professional classes in general have had Irish society sewn for as long as I've been alive - but that doesn't make me any less appalled by what EF is apparently suggesting.

    I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be here - if you're trying to say "yes, that would be bad, but look! other people are bad too", then you're forgetting that two wrongs don't make a right - particularly for someone like me who is neither a PS worker nor a barrister.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #74
    johnathan woss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭johnathan woss


    I only asked because I cannot stand hypocrisy.

    Apologies for briefly besmirching your good name by implication :)


  • Options
    #75
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    johnathan woss wrote: »
    I only asked because I cannot stand hypocrisy.

    Apologies for briefly besmirching your good name by implication :)

    Well, at least you didn't call me a banker...or an estate agent...

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #76
    ronbyrne2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,494 ✭✭✭ronbyrne2005


    If public sector workers want private sector pay levels then leave and get a job paying the pay you want. The public sector should never have been benchmarked against private for many reasons. The public sector should get the going international rate for their job(adjusted for cost of living and taxation differences).
    If a public sector worker wants a job for life, to not have to justify ones position or work or achievements, to get a brillaint pension for rest of life , to not have to risk family home to run a business etc etc , then stay where you are.


  • Options
    #77
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    seclachi wrote: »
    Maybe the simplest way would be to cut 10% of the public service so then ?

    Benchmarking against private sector pay is all well and good when there is the money for it. But at the end of the day almost every single private sector worker is getting what there company can afford. On the other hand the government has a 20 billion euro deficit and it simply cant be made up by taxes (Esp in such a poor economy).

    Its not fair for public sector workers to take a paycut, but neither is it fair for all the private sector workers who have been sacked or had there wages cut.

    Numbers are being cut as we speak. Contracts are not being renewed and significant numbers (especially at the higher grades) are taking up the early retirement scheme from my own personal experiences anyway. Btw I am in favour of moderate paycuts in public sector pay and I would much rather that the unions and the government reach a sensible agreement rather than having to resort to industrial action, but Im just one pawn in this game.


  • Options
    #78
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Well yes - the unemployed are still part of the private sector labour pool. Otherwise, you're suggesting you'd be OK with the idea that if the private sector fired the lowest paid 10%, and average wages therefore rose (which seems to have happened in some areas), you'd like to be benchmarked against that rise. While it would be hard to find something that would be perceived as more outrageous than the original benchmarking exercise, that would probably do it. It does it for me, certainly.

    appalled,
    Scofflaw

    This contradicts the position that the private sector is a fragmented bunch of individual sectors rather than one united mass of workers. Benchmarking was done previously comparing equivalent jobs in both the public and private sector and I think personally benchmarking would be the wrong way to go about reducing the public sector pay bill as we would have to compare the labour pool as you stated in the private sector to a similar labour pool in the public sector..it would get very abstract.

    Anyway as I said previously I do believe there is wriggle room in the public sector for paycuts and I am looking forward to getting this budget over with finally.


  • Options
    #79
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    EF wrote: »
    This contradicts the position that the private sector is a fragmented bunch of individual sectors rather than one united mass of workers. Benchmarking was done previously comparing equivalent jobs in both the public and private sector and I think personally benchmarking would be the wrong way to go about reducing the public sector pay bill as we would have to compare the labour pool as you stated in the private sector to a similar labour pool in the public sector..it would get very abstract.

    That's not particularly abstract, since until quite recently we had full employment, so it's relatively easy at the moment to work out the redundancy risk for comparable jobs and factor it in. Since the risk of redundancy is a very important part of the difference between public and private sector employment, it would be unacceptable not to factor it in.

    As I said, though, I'd probably be happiest with a rollback of the original benchmarking exercise - a rollback, not a clawback.
    EF wrote: »
    Anyway as I said previously I do believe there is wriggle room in the public sector for paycuts and I am looking forward to getting this budget over with finally.

    I think everyone is - it's not like there's going to be good news in there for anyone.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #80
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    As I said, though, I'd probably be happiest with a rollback of the original benchmarking exercise - a rollback, not a clawback.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Interesting. That was one concession my particular colleagues would have been happy with too but I have no idea if this was brought into the negotiations. I doubt it to be honest.


  • Options
    #81
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    EF wrote: »
    Interesting. That was one concession my particular colleagues would have been happy with too but I have no idea if this was brought into the negotiations. I doubt it to be honest.

    That might be the result of the negotiations being in the hands of those who benefited most, and with least reason, from that round of benchmarking.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    They should publish in full the data collected in the original benchmarking.


  • Options
    #83
    ronbyrne2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,494 ✭✭✭ronbyrne2005


    ardmacha wrote: »
    They should publish in full the data collected in the original benchmarking.

    It was shreded after benchmarking was concluded and not allowed to be made public! I know I know,only in Ireland.


  • Options
    #84
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That might be the result of the negotiations being in the hands of those who benefited most, and with least reason, from that round of benchmarking.

    Those who benefitted most were at the higher grades/pay levels. Can you justify your suggestion that there was least reason for giving them their increases? The ESRI judges that those in the lower grades enjoy a far greater public service premium:
    we found that by 2006 senior public service workers earned almost 8 per cent more than their private sector counterparts, while those in lower-level grades earned between 22 and 31 per cent more.
    Source: http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2848
    Full Report: http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20090921103408/JACB200937.pdf


  • Options
    #85
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Those who benefitted most were at the higher grades/pay levels. Can you justify your suggestion that there was least reason for giving them their increases? The ESRI judges that those in the lower grades enjoy a far greater public service premium:

    Source: http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2848
    Full Report: http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20090921103408/JACB200937.pdf

    Since the theoretical justification for benchmarking was the difficulty of recruitment into the PS, I'd say it was hard to justify pay increases for non-recruitment grades at all. Certainly their increases should only have been in line with the increases at the recruitment grades - unless there was an exodus from the higher levels of the PS, which I have to say I don't recall.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #86
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Since the theoretical justification for benchmarking was the difficulty of recruitment into the PS, I'd say it was hard to justify pay increases for non-recruitment grades at all. Certainly their increases should only have been in line with the increases at the recruitment grades - unless there was an exodus from the higher levels of the PS, which I have to say I don't recall.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I believe the justification was - "Because we are worth it!" :)


  • Options
    #87
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    View wrote: »
    I believe the justification was - "Because we are worth it!" :)

    We so are! :DI'll get my coat


  • Options
    #88
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Since the theoretical justification for benchmarking was the difficulty of recruitment into the PS, I'd say it was hard to justify pay increases for non-recruitment grades at all. Certainly their increases should only have been in line with the increases at the recruitment grades - unless there was an exodus from the higher levels of the PS, which I have to say I don't recall.

    I don't have the same recollection as you do. In any event, wherever the discussion started, the intention of benchmarking was to bring public sector pay into some reasonable alignment with rates in the private sector.

    What emerged was a judgement that the pay to those in the higher grades, those people carrying the greatest responsibilities, was further behind their private sector equivalents than was the pay of those in lower grades and entry-level positions. Hence the higher awards to those people. The ESRI study is fully in line with that judgement.

    I'll willingly concede a point: the gap between those lower down the pecking order and those at the top is too large. In the public service, it is large because it reflects what has been happening in the private sector. In the private sector, it happened because of a shift in the business culture over the years. One of the realities in the private sector is that some managers seem to have used their skills to benefit themselves rather more than they used them to benefit their employers. That is most evident at boardroom level.


  • Options
    #89
    seangal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭seangal


    View wrote: »
    I believe the justification was - "Because we are worth it!" :)
    well with what this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it
    public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
    what did the private sector retail do????????
    doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
    shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country


  • Options
    #90
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    seangal wrote: »
    well with waht this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it because we still haven't grasped the bigger picture
    A tiny fraction of the public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
    what did the private sector retail do????????
    A tiny fraction doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
    shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country

    Corrected for you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,601 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    seangal wrote: »
    well with waht this county has gone through in the last week we are worth it
    public sector worked 24 hours a day since thursday in cork
    what did the private sector retail do????????
    doubled the price of drinking water and water bottles
    shame on private sector again showing there greed that destroyed this country

    Have you a source for this?

    This is absolute nonsense.
    Only certain Public workers worked 24 hours, not the whole fecking Public service, and its part of their job to be fair.
    Only certain parts of the private sector MAY be doing what you say. Others, are doing lots to help.
    The weather issues area about people helping people not private versus public.


Advertisement