Trade Unions will be crushed

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

you reject every claim that doesnt sit well with your narrow view , scroll back a few pages and thier is a graph which demonstrates that public sector wages did rise faster than private sector wages in the past decade

It's a bit ironic that you describe my view as narrow. I suspect that you don't know what my position is.

The graph shows otherwise: public sector pay rose by 62% between 1998 and 2008; private sector bay rose by 71% in the same period.

seangal

irish_bob wrote: »

public sector wages rose faster during the boom than in the private sector and guards earned more than plumbers or electricians this past decade

Well in my case you are wrong
I took a wage cut to join the public sector in 2003 while most of my friends were jumping from one company to another and getting wage increase of thousands and that was the fashion in manufacturing from 2001 to 2006

seangal

this show u are wrong again BOB
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/06/20/story254526640.asp

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a bit ironic that you describe my view as narrow. I suspect that you don't know what my position is.

The graph shows otherwise: public sector pay rose by 62% between 1998 and 2008; private sector bay rose by 71% in the same period.

It shows that the public sector rate of pay increase compared to the private sector is such that the private sector will never catch up, indeed the public sector (at current increase rates) would end up earning double the pay of the private sector eventually. 100% of a very small number is still a very small number, 1% of a very large number is still a very large number!!!

(unbiased) Example:
Private sector worker is on 10k in 1998 and ends up on 100k in 2008-a 1000% increase.

Public sector worker is on 50k in 1998 and ends up on 100k in 2008-a 100% increase.

Did the private sector worker (1000% pay rise) really do better than the public sector worker (100% pay rise)?

You're ignoring basic maths here: The slope of the line is the rate of change! The steeper the slope, the greater the rate of change! The reason your figures look like the public sector did 'worse' than the private sector is because they started on a much higher average pay Hence, his smaller percentage pay rise resulted in a much greater actual payrise (in monetary terms) and we don't spend percentages in the shops-we spend money.

Do you accept that the green line is steeper than the purple line? If so, then you also accept that public service pay increased faster than private sector pay.

gerry28

murphaph wrote: »

You sure about that?

:rolleyes:

I don't doubt this graph at all.

My point was of rampant profiteering by sections of the private sector, not overall wage comparisons. Both the public and private sectors in this country were victims of the same greed.

Some people got very greedy and ran away with much of the spoils of the tiger years.

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

It shows that the public sector rate of pay increase compared to the private sector is such that the private sector will never catch up, indeed the public sector (at current increase rates) would end up earning double the pay of the private sector eventually. 100% of a very small number is still a very small number, 1% of a very large number is still a very large number!!!

(unbiased) Example:
Private sector worker is on 10k in 1998 and ends up on 100k in 2008-a 1000% increase.

Public sector worker is on 50k in 1998 and ends up on 100k in 2008-a 100% increase.

Did the private sector worker (1000% pay rise) really do better than the public sector worker (100% pay rise)?

You're ignoring basic maths here: The slope of the line is the rate of change! The steeper the slope, the greater the rate of change! The reason your figures look like the public sector did 'worse' than the private sector is because they started on a much higher average pay Hence, his smaller percentage pay rise resulted in a much greater actual payrise (in monetary terms) and we don't spend percentages in the shops-we spend money.

Do you accept that the green line is steeper than the purple line? If so, then you also accept that public service pay increased faster than private sector pay.

To keep my response brief: that's a load of tosh. In particular, you are simply wrong about the rate of change: the purple line is actually steeper than the green line; it would be more obvious if Lyons were not trying to make a point, and showed things scaled from zero.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To keep my response brief: that's a load of tosh. In particular, you are simply wrong about the rate of change: the purple line is actually steeper than the green line; it would be more obvious if Lyons were not trying to make a point, and showed things scaled from zero.

Good response, not. Starting the graph from 20k instead of zero MAKES NO DIFFERENCE to the slopes of the two lines as any first year maths student will tell you. I could draw in the extra boxes from 0 to 20 k and the remainder of the graph would be identical. It is common mathematical practice to truncate graphs like this where data is not present-why not show the graph up to 100k afterall? Because no average salary falls lower than 20k and higher than 50k for the period of interest, that's why.

Do you know what a slope is? There's 2 and a bit squares between the starting 1998 salaries and 3 and 3 quarter squares between the finishing 2008 salaries-therefore the GREEN line is on average steeper! :rolleyes:

Just let me get this straight-are yo accusing Lyons of trying to mislead people here, and if so, how?

ardmacha

Well take this example, does blue or red have the biggest increase over the period? Blue has the bigger absolute increase but red has almost twice the percentage increase.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

Well take this example, does blue or red have the biggest increase over the period? Blue has the bigger absolute increase but red has almost twice the percentage increase.

Exactly. Try paying for a loaf of bread with a percentage.

Will the red line ever intersect (ie, equal) with the blue line or will they continue to diverge at current rates?

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

Good response, not. Starting the graph from 20k instead of zero MAKES NO DIFFERENCE to the slopes of the two lines as any first year maths student will tell you...

But it does make a difference to how we make a visual interpretation.

Which is greater: 162/10 or 171/10?

[I got further than first year.]

ardmacha

Will the red line ever intersect (ie, equal) with the blue line or will they continue to diverge at current rates?

The lines will never intersect.

In the case of Lyons graph the lines will not intersect either. However there is no reason why the aggregate earnings in the private sector should be exactly equal to the public sector. Different age profile, different levels of education etc will mean a difference.

The main contention in this forum is that the growth in public service salaries has outpaced the growth in private sector salaries over the years. The graph and data shows that this is not true for this 10 year period.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But it does make a difference to how we make a visual interpretation.

Which is greater: 162/10 or 171/10?

[I got further than first year.]

Are you conceding that the public service line is steeper than the private sector line or still maintaining that it's the other way around?

You also failed to answer my other question. You made a seemingly negative comment about Ronan Lyons-are you claiming there is a fault with his data, with his presentation with the data or with something else? If so, what?

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

The lines will never intersect.

Thank you.

ardmacha wrote: »

In the case of Lyons graph the lines will not intersect either. However there is no reason why the aggregate earnings in the private sector should be exactly equal to the public sector. Different age profile, different levels of education etc will mean a difference.

So you believe that the average public sector pay should be greater than the average earnings in the private sector? I believe this goes to the core of the problem-there is a belief that the public sector should be paid more on average. I disagree and believe it should be purely based on performance-sh!t performance, sh!t pay, regardless of how many degree a person has coming out their @rse.

ardmacha wrote: »

The main contention in this forum is that the growth in public service salaries has outpaced the growth in private sector salaries over the years. The graph and data shows that this is not true for this 10 year period.

Your own graph shows it to be the case! The SLOPE OF THE LINE IS THE RATE OF CHANGE! The steeper the slope, the greater the rate of change. Percentages are irrelevant here-

If I was a public sector worker on 100k and I got a measly 10% increase in the ten years I'd be on 110k. If I was a private sector worker on 10k and I got a great 50% pay rise (5 times the pay rise according to you guys!!) I'd be on a whopping 15k a decade later!! See the problem here? Did that private sector worker's pay really increase 5 times more/faster than his public sector counterpart, if so, how come his total pay rise was half that of the public servant??!!

Guys-look at the slopes. The percentages are irrelevant. It's absolute terms that count when talking about whose pay incremented faster than whose.

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

Are you conceding that the public service line is steeper than the private sector line or still maintaining that it's the other way around?

Use your maths!

You also failed to answer my other question. You made a seemingly negative comment about Ronan Lyons-are you claiming there is a fault with his data, with his presentation with the data or with something else? If so, what?

Presentation. Side issue.

SkepticOne

From that graph, the private sector got a 71% increase and the public sector got a 66% increase using the normal method of calculating percentage increases.

This is not to say that savings need to be made in public sector wages; they do, but from a factual point of view the relative rise in public sector wages was slightly less than the relative rise in private sector wages. However a lot of the rise in private sector wages would have been based on unsustainable activity associated with the housing bubble/building boom etc and is being adjusted back now.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Use your maths!

So you are conceding it?

You know if I go and plug the starting and finishing salaries into the m=(y2-y1/x2-x1) formula that the public service pay curve will be steeper. I couldn't be @rsed-Ray Charles could see it's steeper. Ardmacha can see it's steeper too.

znv6i3h7kqf9ys

Getting very complicated in here now. Should it not simply be the case that public sector should get paid less for equivalent jobs as they have offset risk by having a safer jobs and pensions?

Riskymove

Edison Ripe Lasagna wrote: »

Getting very complicated in here now. Should it not simply be the case that public sector should get paid less for equivalent jobs as they have offset risk by having a safer jobs and pensions?

similar jobs like what?

znv6i3h7kqf9ys

Riskymove wrote: »

similar jobs like what?

admin, office manager etc

Riskymove

Edison Ripe Lasagna wrote: »

admin, office manager etc

what should a garda be measured against?

what should a fire fighter?


do we have statistical data on what admin and office managers make?

P. Breathnach

Edison Ripe Lasagna wrote: »

Getting very complicated in here now. Should it not simply be the case that public sector should get paid less for equivalent jobs as they have offset risk by having a safer jobs and pensions?

You mean benchmarking. It's difficult to object to that. It's also a difficult operation to conduct, because deciding job equivalence is very complex. There probably isn't a great deal of equivalence within the private sector.

murphaph

Why not just pay the public sector the minimum required to get applicants with the required abilities, like erm, the private sector. The private sector pays as little as possible to keep the people they want to keep-not one penny more. The public sector has the added advantage of job security to offer, so should be able to offer even lower pay than the private sector (in general) as this added benefit (job security) will be factored in by prospective applicants.

The goal should be to spend as little as possible, while maintaining standards to a defined minimum acceptable level. Not everyone should start on the same salary nor should everyone get the same increase. All new applicants should start on the lowest salary they will accept and only get increments/pay rises when their performance merits it.

seangal

looks like the union are doing the crushing and will be around for a lot longer

LoLth

murphaph wrote: »

So you are conceding it?

You know if I go and plug the starting and finishing salaries into the m=(y2-y1/x2-x1) formula that the public service pay curve will be steeper. I couldn't be @rsed-Ray Charles could see it's steeper. Ardmacha can see it's steeper too.

but are you not referring to the rate of change rather than the absolute quantity of change?

is the rate constant? is the rate likely to be constant forever?

ronbyrne2005

Riskymove wrote: »

what should a garda be measured against?

what should a fire fighter?


do we have statistical data on what admin and office managers make?

Should be benchmarked against same jobs in rest europe with an allowance factored in for higher cost of living.

murphaph

LoLth wrote: »

but are you not referring to the rate of change rather than the absolute quantity of change?

is the rate constant? is the rate likely to be constant forever?

Both the rate of change and the quantity of change were larger for the public service from 1998 to 2008. My point is that if we don't make changes now, that this disparity will continue until the country is bankrupt (if not already). The private sector pay for the next two years will make very interesting reading-the 2008 figure already showed a marked drop off in the rate of increase of private sector pay.

Even if the lines were parallel, it would be a somewhat sustainable position (in theory), but having divergent lines means only one thing-either public sector pay needs cutting or private sector pay needs increasing. The latter is not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

murphaph

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Should be benchmarked against same jobs in rest europe with an allowance factored in for higher cost of living.

Don't think so ron. The rest of Europe isn't bankrupt and borrowing 20bn a year from the Germans. The higher wages in ireland fueled the higher cost of living-cut wages and the cost of living will fall further, faster. The only ones who will suffer are the ones who bought property at the height of the boom and those who have become accustomed to 3 foreign holidays a year, all the while Ireland was becoming less relevant as an exporter.

ardmacha

Both the rate of change and the quantity of change were larger for the public service from 1998 to 2008. My point is that if we don't make changes now, that this disparity will continue until the country is bankrupt (if not already). The private sector pay for the next two years will make very interesting reading-the 2008 figure already showed a marked drop off in the rate of increase of private sector pay.

Even if the lines were parallel, it would be a somewhat sustainable position (in theory), but having divergent lines means only one thing-either public sector pay needs cutting or private sector pay needs increasing. The latter is not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

Yes I do see the slope of the line. But it is not the slope of the line that is of interest it is the rate of increase, which is less for the public sector. The point is that this is a complex matter, not easily analysed by looking at averages and summaries. If the public sector improved health and education by hiring more consultants and professors and the private sector experienced immigration of people doing cleaning jobs and building labourers then the gap could widen, but this would not mean that public servants had become better paid.This debate is largely fact free in part because the likes of the HSE cannot even produce statistics.
Aggregate private sector pay rates may not show a huge dropoff in 2008-2009 as the lower paid temps and latecomers have been laid off first in many cases.

murphaph

ardmacha wrote: »

Yes I do see the slope of the line. But it is not the slope of the line that is of interest it is the rate of increase, which is less for the public sector. The point is that this is a complex matter, not easily analysed by looking at averages and summaries. If the public sector improved health and education by hiring more consultants and professors and the private sector experienced immigration of people doing cleaning jobs and building labourers then the gap could widen, but this would not mean that public servants had become better paid.This debate is largely fact free in part because the likes of the HSE cannot even produce statistics.
Aggregate private sector pay rates may not show a huge dropoff in 2008-2009 as the lower paid temps and latecomers have been laid off first in many cases.

The slope of the line IS the rate of increase. The only possible way it can be spun (and it is spin) that the average public sector pay increased slower than the private sector is when the figures are expressed as a percentage of pay. The fact is that in 8 out of 10 years, between 1998 and 2008, the public sector average wage increased by MORE than the private sector equivalent.

I accept that these things are more complicated than this graph, but when even a simple graph is being disputed and held up for something other than what it is, you have to wonder.

Another example-
You work in a department with another lad. He started on 50k ten years ago and received a pay increase of 50% over that time to bring him to 75k. You were hired at the same time and worked alongside him after starting on 32k and got a bigger percentage pay rise of 75% and are now on 56k. Who got stiffed? You for starting on a smaller comparative salary, or your colleague for getting a smaller percentage pay increase? Who is happier at the end of the day?

The private sector got stiffed from day one of Benchmarking IMO.

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

Both the rate of change and the quantity of change were larger for the public service from 1998 to 2008. ...

Not so. The rate of change was greater for the private sector.