My outrage at some members of the Private Sector..

jimmmy

Liam79 wrote: »

The key word being FAIR.........
I have no qualms with public sector pay cuts, but its not being done fairly
7.5% acorss the board..........so a grade 8 making 70k-100k ot a grade 3 making 22-30K both have to take the same cut relevant to their incomes....

How do you know it will not be "done fairly 7.5% acorss the board "?
Wait for the budget. I agree with you the top should pay a lot more. Even the average retired public servant is getting more from the government for doing nothing than your partner is for working each week.
I would express outrage at some members of the Public Sector.. if I were you.;). They are leaving less in the pie for your partner.

Gulliver

I don't know where you're getting this "Private Sector were on bigger wages during the boom" idea from. It certainly didn't seem to happen in the North-West. I have worked in IT from 2000 and have Hons Degree in IT.

Despite giving 5 years to one company and three to another (who scoffed at my degree during interview - "sure it doesn't mean anything in the real world"), I never managed to hit the level of wages for most enrty level jobs in the Public Sector. (Not giving details of wages, as it's kinda embarrassing when I think about it).

I finally got a job with decent pay in 2008 - only to be let go in April this year.

I have applied for Public Sector jobs and even got to interview. However I never seem to have what they're looking for. One of the jobs in an L.A. IT Dept went to a person I knew. A person who couldn't even set up her own Gmail address. I had to do it for her. No degree either. She did ECDL. Daddy is a Councillor though.

My point is - don't be so hasty to tar the whole Private Sector with the "big bucks" brush and maybe we'll drop the Nepotism/Job for Life/Lazy brush.

Anyway - the Government had the biggest hand in screwing this country - not the Civil Servants who worked for them.

seamus

The Muppet wrote: »

Ps workers and their families have votes too you know.

The public service represents about 10% of the electorate. Even if you double that to include immediate family members, the government is still looking at pissing off 20% of their constituents or pissing off 80% of their constituents. I know which I'd pick.

Figures are probably more conservative then the actual, but that's my point about the public service thinking it's bigger and stronger than it actually is.

It's not about the public being jealous or being duped. It's not about NAMA or about the banks having ripped us off. We need to plug a hole in the public finances, and we have two big fncuking drains on those finances who can well afford to squeezed - not each person individually, but the services themselves can afford the cuts without compromising on the quality of that service.

It doesn't matter how many private sectors workers have been laid off, it doesn't matter how much private sector does or doesn't get paid. Your employer is haemorraghing money and cuts have to be made. All the strikes in the world won't change that simple fact.

When my employer was making redundancies and pay cuts earlier this year, I'd have been laughed out of the building if I tried to point out that the company down the road wasn't doing the same. What necessary for one employer may not be necessary for another. An the state is an employer just like any other.

Peanut

Liam79 wrote: »

Funny cos nearly everyone I have spoken to in the private sector agrees with me that a 7.5% cut on workers at grade 3 level is far too harsh....

That doesn't sound very representative of the private sector mood.

jimmmy

Gulliver wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting this "Private Sector were on bigger wages during the boom" idea from. It certainly didn't seem to happen in the North-West. I have worked in IT from 2000 and have Hons Degree in IT.

Despite giving 5 years to one company and three to another (who scoffed at my degree during interview - "sure it doesn't mean anything in the real world"), I never managed to hit the level of wages for most enrty level jobs in the Public Sector. (Not giving details of wages, as it's kinda embarrassing when I think about it).

I finally got a job with decent pay in 2008 - only to be let go in April this year.

I have applied for Public Sector jobs and even got to interview. However I never seem to have what they're looking for. One of the jobs in an L.A. IT Dept went to a person I knew. A person who couldn't even set up her own Gmail address. I had to do it for her. No degree either. She did ECDL. Daddy is a Councillor though.

My point is - don't be so hasty to tar the whole Private Sector with the "big bucks" brush and maybe we'll drop the Nepotism/Job for Life/Lazy brush.

Anyway - the Government had the biggest hand in screwing this country - not the Civil Servants who worked for them.

+1. Good points well made. Hope you get a job soon.

OMD

Liam79 wrote: »

The key word being FAIR.........
I have no qualms with public sector pay cuts, but its not being done fairly
7.5% acorss the board..........so a grade 8 making 70k-100k ot a grade 3 making 22-30K both have to take the same cut relevant to their incomes....

Do you think thats fair?

Liam you began in your first post by saying
that you are outraged at private sector
"Who believe everything they read and hear in the biased media"

This works both ways. I don't know where you are getting 7.5% from. Presumably it is from the unions implying that everyone in public sector has taken a 7.5% paycut via the pension levy. This of course is untrue. Only those earning €50,000 paid 7.5% pension levy. Someone on your wife's salary paid about 5% pension levy.

If you are talking about future cuts, well we don't know what the figures are. The government have said they want to cut 1.3 billion from public sector pay bill. This will come from natural wastage, early retirement, cuts in overtime and wage cuts. If the entire amount was to come from wage cuts it would amount to 6.3% pay cut accross the board. The reality is when all the other measures are taken into account the actual pay cut will be about 4% if applied accross the board.

On a totally seperate point. While I accept your wife is low paid at present. If she remains at her current level and never gets promoted her pay will rise every year to about 40,000 in todays money. Obviously if she is promoted it will go up even more. Again if never promoted she will retire with a lump sum of €60,000 in todays money and a yearly pension of €20,000 a year. On top of that should she become ill in the mean time she will be able to take 6 months sick leave inany 3 year period on full pay

ardmacha

and a yearly pension of €20,000 a year.

No it won't. It will come with a pension of just under €10,000 per year.

jimmmy

ardmacha wrote: »

No it won't. It will come with a pension of just under €10,000 per year.

Correction. The total pension she will receice from the govt is 50% of finishing salary ie € 20,000
Plus she will have her 60,000 lump sum tax free to do with as she wants. In some parts of the country this will but a nice liveable-in property.

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

No it won't. It will come with a pension of just under €10,000 per year.

Someone earning 40K gets a pension of 20K. Assuming they have 40 years service. Assuming she never gets promoted she will get a pension of 20,000 a year in todays money.

Riskymove

OMD wrote: »

Someone earning 40K gets a pension of 20K. Assuming they have 40 years service. Assuming she never gets promoted she will get a pension of 20,000 a year in todays money.

if she is a post 1995 entrant she will get the OAP circa €11,000 in todays money, the same as all PRSI workers are entitled to

and a public pension of €9,000 contributed to for 40 years

BrianD3

OMD wrote: »

Someone earning 40K gets a pension of 20K. Assuming they have 40 years service. Assuming she never gets promoted she will get a pension of 20,000 a year in todays money.

I believe the point he was making is that the public service pension, which public servants pay superannuation towards, is <10k in this case. Which it is.

Because every employee (public and private) with sufficient* PRSI contributions gets a guaranteed, defined benefit, index linked state pension of 230 euro per week which is around 12k per year.

When private sector employees wail about the injustice of public servants getting "gilt edged" pensions, presumably, out of principle they themselves are going to refuse to draw the contributory old age pension that they are entitled to :rolleyes:

*AFAIK a person needs at least 260 PRSI contributions with an average of at least 48 per year working.

Riskymove

BrianD3 wrote: »

*AFAIK a person needs at least 260 PRSI contributions with an average of at least 48 per year working.

BrianD3's point againrefer to a post-1995 entrant

people often overlook the change that that brought and the effect on expenditure

I have no doubt that further changes are ahead for new entrants

OMD

BrianD3 wrote: »

I believe the point he was making is that the public service pension, which public servants pay superannuation towards, is <10k in this case. Which it is.

Because every employee (public and private) with sufficient* PRSI contributions gets a guaranteed, defined benefit, index linked state pension of 230 euro per week which is around 12k per year.

When private sector employees wail about the injustice of public servants getting "gilt edged" pensions, presumably, out of principle they themselves are going to refuse to draw the contributory old age pension that they are entitled to :rolleyes:

*AFAIK a person needs at least 260 PRSI contributions with an average of at least 48 per year working.

She will get a pension of 20K a year as I said. How it is made up is pretty irrelevant. Actually it is 20K a year assuming wages only go up with inflation over the next 37 years which given past performance is unlikely.

On another point. If again she is never promoted in 8 years she will receive a wage greater than 50% of the people employed in this country. Based on what the OP has said she will be about 34 years old at that time.

So lets get this clear. This woman is in a job that most people on this site feel is low paid. Despite this, at age 34, if she was rubbish at her job and never got promoted she would still earn more than 50% of the population. To be honest I find that totally shocking.

Edit: Can I assume if her library opens Saturdays or in evenings she would earn even more.

Riskymove

OMD wrote: »

She will get a pension of 20K a year as I said. How it is made up is pretty irrelevant.

it is very relevant.... if she is contributing sufficiently for what she will get then what does it matter how much it is?

ardmacha

people often overlook the change that that brought and the effect on expenditure

It is only accounting, there is no significant change in money

Pre 1995 lower salary no contribution
people don't get the old age pension, get higher Gov pension

post 1995 higher salary pension contribution
get old age pension and lower Gov pension

One implication of this change was that the people retiring today are drawing pension only from the government, so causing the pension bill to appear to increase rapidly, but there is no increase in the OAP pension bill.

In the future the PS pensions will increase less rapidly, but the OAP pension will be pro-rata to the population.

Riskymove

ardmacha wrote: »

It is only accounting, there is no significant change in money

there is a change in contribution though

Stark

Tom1974 wrote: »

The whole debate can be summed up as typical Irish begrudgery. While during the boom years where private sector trade men could make tax free nixers, bonuses paid to many staff, share options for employees in particular private sector firms, vhi paid for etc etc, there was no-one complaining about the rates of public sector pay..... but as soon as the tide changes the green eyed monster appears!!! Pathetic nation:mad:

I've worked in both private and public, and believe me there are plenty of dossers in both sectors!

Ooh, VHI paid for. That was like what, €800 a year? Jesus, those in the private sector were rolling in it. I got a bonus this year. It was 3% of salary for outperforming my peers. Not for simply being there.

gerry28

Riskymove wrote: »

if she is a post 1995 entrant she will get the OAP circa €11,000 in todays money, the same as all PRSI workers are entitled to

and a public pension of €9,000 contributed to for 40 years

This is the position i'm in.... i.m paying 6.5% of my wages into my pension for a miserable 9000K above what i would get if i didn't contribute anything to it for 40yrs.

Gold plated pension my aras!!!!

Riskymove

Stark wrote: »

It was 3% of salary for outperforming my peers. .

at least you get recognised for outperforming your peers...not everyone does

well done...

Riskymove

gerry28 wrote: »

This is the position i'm in.... i.m paying 6.5% of my wages into my pension for a miserable 9000K above what i would get if i didn't contribute anything to it for 40yrs.

Gold plated pension my aras!!!!

around 13% including the current levy

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

at least you get recognised for outperforming your peers...not everyone does

well done...

You should try being self-employed. 100% performance-related pay.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Riskymove wrote: »

there is a change in contribution though

Not really, in any meaningful sense -- where by meaningful one means the amount of money an employee takes home. Pay rates and PRSI/Pension Scheme contributions were engineered so that the impact of the change was, as far as possible, neutral.

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

You should try being self-employed. 100% performance-related pay.

You mean that it's all bonus.

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

You should try being self-employed. 100% performance-related pay.

ah but your existence and continual custom at the the expense of your inferior rivals is being recognised for your perfromance

Stark

Riskymove wrote: »

at least you get recognised for outperforming your peers...not everyone does

well done...

It's why I chose to work in the private sector as I worked in the public sector for a time and getting the same rewards as wasters is soul crushing. I get the impression from some people though that they think the bonuses being paid to private sector workers were to the order of 20 - 30% etc. Not true. To a stock market guru in London maybe...

OMD

Riskymove wrote: »

it is very relevant.... if she is contributing sufficiently for what she will get then what does it matter how much it is?

You are missing my point totally. The OP is saying we should feel sorry for his wife. People (including me ) are saying she is low paid. The reality is she is not. Again even if she is totally incompetent and never gets promoted. Unless she gets fired (which lets face it is rare enough) by age 34 she will earn more than the average worker. She will earn this by working a 39 hour week The average worker earns his/her pay by working 45 hours a week. On top of that before she is 40 she will be earning just shy of 40K a year. On top of that she will get a lump sum tax free on retirement of 60K (+ any % increase in civil service pay) and a pension of 20k a year (+any % increase in civil service pay). On top of this she will receive 6 months sick pay on full pay in any 3 year period. On top of this she will have guarenteed holidays, more than likely be able to take periods of unpaid leave after pregnancies and possibly get "term time" to help with child care.

The impression here is I am somehow supposed to feel sorry for her! Somehow she is a victim of evil unions and greedy senior civil servants!

Stark

Not bad for a job whose only entry requirements is a pass Leaving Cert (I checked the entry requirements for Grade 3 assistant). Anyone with any qualifcations/experience at all can get in at Grade 2 and the money is very good there.

Tipp Man

Stark wrote: »

Not bad for a job whose only entry requirements is a pass Leaving Cert (I checked the entry requirements for Grade 3 assistant). Anyone with any qualifcations/experience at all can get in at Grade 2 and the money is very good there.

Are you serious??

What about all the bull i had to listen to on the previous page about how the job is so much more than stacking books etc and that a 5 year degree was needed for this job??

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You mean that it's all bonus.

Cheeky!

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tipp Man wrote: »

Are you serious??

What about all the bull i had to listen to on the previous page about how the job is so much more than stacking books etc and that a 5 year degree was needed for this job??

For the librarian job - not the assistant librarian. That was, to be fair, made clear at the time.

cordially,
Scofflaw