The "worst of all possible worlds": The deal between Government and the unions

ceret

Knightfall wrote: »

But, a very large number of the public service employees earn between 24k and 27k per annum.

Where do you get that figure? The CSO reports that the average public sector salary is €50,000. (Public Sector Employment and Earnings - March 2009).

BostonB

Flamed Diving wrote: »

But if one is to pass comment on said document, shouldn't it be standard practice that they have at least read the summary?

Best practise would be to quote what you've linked to. IMO. Do you mean my responses to "double in the public sector as it was in the private sector" & "uniform a work culture as the public service"

The report isn't about the public sector, its about the civil service. So I can't be commenting on the document. I don't think the report is specifically about clerical officers either (in the CS not Public) its just mentions some stats about that group. I asked about any comparisions with paid sick leave in the public sector. I don't think the summary does any comparisions, I don't know about the rest of the document. Its not a survey of the private sector, public sector. Unless it takes stats from some other source. I haven't read it. So I'm open to correction. But tbh I've kinda lost interest in it now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TJJP

ceret wrote: »

Yes anecdotal evidence is not so helpful. However the Comptroller and Auditor General recently published a report of sick leave in the Public Sector and backed up most of the steryotypes people have, and that the rate of sick days was about double in the public sector as it was in the private sector.

The report from the C&AG -

Did it? Have you read the report? Anecdotal indeed.

Riskymove

ceret wrote: »

Where do you get that figure? The CSO reports that the average public sector salary is €50,000. (Public Sector Employment and Earnings - March 2009).

and what has the average to do with how many earn between 24-27??

The_Honeybadger

Riskymove wrote: »

and what has the average to do with how many earn between 24-27??

Average is 50k and the average for administrative staff is 46k. I dont know what percentage of PS workers earn less than 30k but I cant imagine it is very many. I know that unions have been claiming that one third of all PS workers earn less than 40k (so 66% of PS workers earn more than 40k). Therefore the percentage on less than 30k must be very small, and not a large number as one poster said.

Riskymove

mickeyk wrote: »

Average is 50k and the average for administrative staff is 46k. I dont know what percentage of PS workers earn less than 30k but I cant imagine it is very many. I know that unions have been claiming that one third of all PS workers earn less than 40k (so 66% of PS workers earn more than 40k). Therefore the percentage on less than 30k must be very small, and not a large number as one poster said.

so the answer is the average does not eman anything to the matter at hand

its generally the position, as you state that 33% earn 40k or less...as well as that 66% earn 60K or less

so basically one third under 40k, a third 40-60k and a third over 60K

thats say around 117,000 roughly (based on around 350,000) in each category

why could there not then be "many" earning less than 30k??

what is "many"??

there could easily be, looking at the data 50,000 or 60,000 earning that...is that not "many" people??

MysticalRain

There can't be that many people in the public service working for less than 30K if even lowly clerical officers start on 24K (In the private sector, they would be on 4-6 grand less). After a couple of years of working hard, they should be hitting 30K. Let's not forget that certain professions in the PS actually start out more than 30K for a graduate fresh out of college with zero experience.

Riskymove

MysticalRain wrote: »

There can't be that many people in the public service working for less than 30K if even lowly clerical officers start on 24K (In the private sector, they would be on 4-6 grand less). After a couple of years of working hard, they should be hitting 30K. Let's not forget that certain professions in the PS actually start out more than 30K for a graduate fresh out of college with zero experience.

you are overlooking the fact that there is a significant amount of part-time work (work-sharing etc) in the public service

MysticalRain

Riskymove wrote: »

you are overlooking the fact that there is a significant amount of part-time work (work-sharing etc) in the public service

Well duh! Of course someone is going to be earning less than 30 in those cases. That's their own choice to work for a lower salary by working part-time or job sharing.

If you want to start a separate debate comparing part-time workers in the private sector Vs part-time workers in the public sector, then go right ahead. That's a separate issue to what we're discussing here, which is full-time wages.

Riskymove

MysticalRain wrote: »

If you want to start a separate debate comparing part-time workers in the private sector Vs part-time workers in the public sector, then go right ahead. That's a separate issue to what we're discussing here, which is full-time wages.

funnily enough I thought the point was how many people were earning 24-27k

if thats the question, then the answer includes part time workers as that is what they are paid

their actually salary is used to determine statistcis, including the numbers at various levels and averages etc...not what their salary might be if they working full-time

MysticalRain

Riskymove wrote: »

funnily enough I thought the point was how many people were earning 24-27k

if thats the question, then the answer includes part time workers as that is what they are paid

their actually salary is used to determine statistcis, including the numbers at various levels and averages etc...not what their salary might be if they working full-time

If people *choose* to earn less by opting for part-time work, they shouldn't expect as much sympathy as someone working full time for the same amount.

It certainly skews the statistics all right. It makes the public sector appear even more overpaid if you include part-time workers to make the point that public sector workers are "underpaid".

Riskymove

MysticalRain wrote: »

If people *choose* to earn less by opting for part-time work, they shouldn't expect as much sympathy as someone working full time for the same amount.

who said anything about sympathy


mind you, many people, both public and private have to balance domestic and work situations and I would be mindful of that

It makes the public sector appear even more overpaid if you include part-time workers to make the point that public sector workers are "underpaid".

whose making that point?

murphaph

Riskymove wrote: »

you are overlooking the fact that there is a significant amount of part-time work (work-sharing etc) in the public service

Lol, so now even part time workers in the PS should be paid fulltime wages?!

If someone CHOOSES to go part time (an oprion open to few in the private sector, another benefit of the PS), then they earn less. Simple.

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

Lol, so now even part time workers in the PS should be paid fulltime wages?!

what are you on about?

where is anyone saying that?

MysticalRain

Riskymove wrote: »

whose making that point?

At this stage, I no longer have any idea of what your point is.

Riskymove

MysticalRain wrote: »

At this stage, I no longer have any idea of what your point is.

why not?

its simply about what was being discussed...i.e. the number of people in the public service earning less than 30k..its just about numbers

I never mentioned sympathy....or that they were underpaid....or that they should be paid full-time wages for part_time work :rolleyes: as suggested by Murphaph

MysticalRain

Riskymove wrote: »

why not?

its simply about what was being discussed...i.e. the number of people in the public service earning less than 30k..its just about numbers

I never mentioned sympathy....or that they were underpaid....or that they should be paid full-time wages for part_time work :rolleyes: as suggested by Murphaph

Well if someone chooses to work part-time, then they are irrelevant to the debate because they're always going to earn less regardless.

You would be better off having a separate comparison for part-time workers in both sectors.

Riskymove

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well if someone chooses to work part-time, then they are irrelevant to the debate because they're always going to earn less regardless.

You would be better off having a separate comparison for part-time workers in both sectors.

you can only do that if part-time workers are not included in coming up with figures for the private sector??

in any event, most reports try and use FTEs as a way of ensuring comparability

murphaph

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well if someone chooses to work part-time, then they are irrelevant to the debate because they're always going to earn less regardless.

You would be better off having a separate comparison for part-time workers in both sectors.

Don't forget to factor in the cost of flexitime and job sharing to the employer. It is almost NEVER more efficient for 2 or more people to share one full time job unless the job is so mindless that absolutely no communication between the job sharers is required. This ability to jobshare or work flexi time is extremely rare in the private sector. It is another unseen benefit of the PS and should be treated as such.

Riskymove

murphaph wrote: »

Don't forget to factor in the cost of flexitime and job sharing to the employer. It is almost NEVER more efficient for 2 or more people to share one full time job unless the job is so mindless that absolutely no communication between the job sharers is required. This ability to jobshare or work flexi time is extremely rare in the private sector. It is another unseen benefit of the PS and should be treated as such.

In my experience, in general practice these days worksharing is rarely actually sharing the same job

other than in processing type areas where its more appropriate

its basically more like part-time workers

MysticalRain

Riskymove wrote: »

you can only do that if part-time workers are not included in coming up with figures for the private sector??

in any event, most reports try and use FTEs as a way of ensuring comparability

I'm sure those elementary factors are taken into account when the ESRI or the CSO compile their statistics.

ceret

mickeyk wrote: »

Average is 50k and the average for administrative staff is 46k. I dont know what percentage of PS workers earn less than 30k but I cant imagine it is very many. I know that unions have been claiming that one third of all PS workers earn less than 40k (so 66% of PS workers earn more than 40k). Therefore the percentage on less than 30k must be very small, and not a large number as one poster said.

Yes. Impact state that "A third earn less than €40k". Ergo two thirds (or the majority) earn more than €40k. (source). (Nial Shanahan of Impact claimed the source of that was: "Comparisons between health, finance, business, manufacturing, transport and communications drawn from current CSO figures;")

To say that the majority earn less than €30k flatly goes against what even the public sector unions are saying.

Riskymove

ceret wrote: »

To say that the majority earn less than €30k flatly goes against what even the public sector unions are saying.

yes it would


has anybody said that?

ceret

Riskymove wrote: »

yes it would


has anybody said that?

Yes.

Knightfall wrote: »

... a very large number of the public service employees earn between 24k and 27k per annum. ...

Riskymove

ceret wrote: »

Yes.

I suggest you read the two statements again

I think you'll find they are not the same

ceret

Riskymove wrote: »

I suggest you read the two statements again

I think you'll find they are not the same

To claim that statement didn't imply the majority is about as intellectually honest as the catholic clergy's 'mental reservation' cop-out (more info).

Yes to go over each word, one could conclude that those 2 statements don't mean the same, however that's deceptive word games at the best.

Riskymove

ceret wrote: »

To claim that statement didn't imply the majority is about as intellectually honest as the catholic clergy's 'mental reservation' cop-out (more info).

Yes to go over each word, one could conclude that those 2 statements don't mean the same, however that's deceptive word games at the best.

I disagree completely

he said that there were "a very large number" of people earning between 24-27k

he never mentioned the word "majority"....if you read it that way fair enough...but I disagree thats what was implied

I think there are a large number of such people but its nowhere near the majority

Dr Galen

murphaph wrote: »

This ability to jobshare or work flexi time is extremely rare in the private sector. It is another unseen benefit of the PS and should be treated as such.

Jobsharing maybe, I don't know enough to say, but flexi-time is certainly not extremely rare.