Public sector pay: A modest proposal

droidus

Seeing as the overall consensus both here and in media and political circles is that the public sector need to reduce wage levels to match the private sector, I have a suggestion as to how this could be achieved:

Overall, in the public sector, women are paid 21 per cent, less than men, with men now paid on average 28.8 per cent more per hour than women in the private sector. In some parts of the private sector the difference is much larger.

Also, under the 1998 Equality Act, public offices must meet a 3% disability employment target and report every year to the relevant statutory Monitoring Committee. This does not apply to the private sector.

Now, although the 2008 benchmarking review claimed that “there is little or no public service premium, if comparison is made with private sector employees in large establishments” which, the report notes, “accounts for a significant majority of public sector workers”, various interpretations of CSO figures have come out which claim that public sector pay is anything between 10 - 30% higher than private sector pay.

One interpretation claimed that the pay differential for women in the public sector was +49% but only +12% for men (which means it is now approx -4% for the average male public sector worker).

Given that the Public sector must 'face reality' and start functioning as a private sector company, I propose that the Public sector needs to bring in a minimum 8% pay cut for women only, who are, after all, paid far more than they would be paid in the private sector. If we really want to match the private sector, this cut could go as high as 20-40% in some cases.

While we're at it we should abolish the disability employment target and other equality legislation and no doubt make further savings.

Now I realise this may be a controversial proposal, but as we have all been told, the public sector must match the private sector in terms of pay and conditions, so this seems like a necessary step which I'm sure will be supported by all those who call for Public/Private pay parity, and would go a long way to reducing the deficit further in 2011.

I can also profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country

frman

Can I have the last minute of my life back please ?

droidus

Whats the problem? Its a great idea.

amacachi

I'm LOLing at your attempt to make me LOL.

frman

I can see where you are going with this however.


I have for a long time believed that women are to blame for this whole mess. If they just stayed in the home and didn't insist on entering the workplace, this country would be in a much better state.

House prices wouldn't have got out of control as mortgages would have been based on 1 income only.

There'd be plenty of jobs going around for us lads right now.

droidus

Look, if you accept the principle that the public sector needs to be as much like the private sector as possible, then you have to accept the fact that there a certain conditions that must be changed - more equal pay for women is one of those things.

There are more women in the public service the the private sector so we could save a lot of money by cutting them back to private sector levels.

@Frman - you know the score. Men would be swimming in jobs if it wasn't for those pesky women - I'm also sure there's plenty of unemployed men who would happily take a woman's Public Sector job at the new reduced rate of pay.

frman

droidus wrote: »

I'm also sure there's plenty of unemployed men who would happily take a woman's Public Sector job at the new reduced rate of pay.

But then they would be doing "wimmins work" !!

Not sure how that would go down in the bar (men-only of course) over a few pints

gandalf

frman wrote: »

I can see where you are going with this however.


I have for a long time believed that women are to blame for this whole mess. If they just stayed in the home and didn't insist on entering the workplace, this country would be in a much better state.

House prices wouldn't have got out of control as mortgages would have been based on 1 income only.

There'd be plenty of jobs going around for us lads right now.

I actually believe you need to look further back than that. Its when they got the vote. Since then two world wars, an economic depression (maybe a second one!), the cold war, the aids crisis, the Tellytubbies, Barney, Spongebob Squarepants. All because women got the vote. Fire em all give the unemployed men their jobs and the crisis is sorted

Sleepy

Women have equal pay in Ireland. It's legally guaranteed to them.

There are comparitively very few jobs where one can earn huge money. Consequently, competition for these jobs is high, the hours are long and the work tends to be stressfull. As a group women choose to pursue these higher paid jobs less than men do; preferring more time off, less stressful jobs or to raise families instead.

TBH, I'm aligned much the same. Given the choice between a moderate salary with reasonable working hours to let me spend more time with my family and less stress and the stressful position with long hours that pays huge money, I'll take the former every time. I don't think I'm unique amongst men in making that choice. Nor am I saying that there aren't women who make the opposite choice. Those of them with the mindset to actively pursue these positions are just lower in number than their male counter-parts.

I absolutely detest the propaganda the feminazi's put out to maintain that women are paid less than men. There should be no job in this country where a woman is paid less than her equally qualified, equally experienced, equally productive male counterpart. If there is one, the woman working in it is sitting on top of a financial windfall thanks to our strong equality legislation. Therefore, we've done all we can in this issue.

"But what about access to childcare?" I hear the feminists screach. Yes, it's expensive but that's not a problem if you're pursuing the high paying jobs is it? Yes, that involves choosing not to see much of your kids because those jobs will involve long hours. But that's the exact same trade-off that men face in this regard too! Ergo, there's equality.

"But what about single mothers?" is guaranteed to be the next screach. To which I contest that there should be no special status for a single mother in society while the father of her child is still alive. Give all parents equal rights and equal responsibilities towards their offspring and being a single mother becomes no different to being a single father - unless you choose not to inform the father of his parenthood in which case I've no sympathy for you.

Campaign for equality for all under the principle of blind justice and I'll join your campaign. Campaign to further the rights of the societal grouping you happen to fall into and I'll just consider you another self-interested bigot.

amacachi

I would love to see the data and circumstances behind the pay gap publicity. Is length of service included etc. etc.? If not then of course men will tend to be paid more than women. Give it another 20 years and it won't be the case.

frman

Sleepy wrote: »

There should be no job in this country where a woman is paid less than her equally qualified, equally experienced, equally productive male counterpart.

Don't agree with this bit at all.

Sleepy

Maybe I phrased it badly frman, I meant that I don't believe such a situation exists for two reasons:

(a) it's illegal and the punishment cost is high in a civil case.
(b) there is pretty much no such thing as two identically qualified, experienced and productive people - regardless of gender.

If you disagree with the statement as a concept can I ask why?

droidus

Sleepy wrote: »

Women have equal pay in Ireland. It's legally guaranteed to them.

There are comparitively very few jobs where one can earn huge money. Consequently, competition for these jobs is high, the hours are long and the work tends to be stressfull. As a group women choose to pursue these higher paid jobs less than men do; preferring more time off, less stressful jobs or to raise families instead.

TBH, I'm aligned much the same. Given the choice between a moderate salary with reasonable working hours to let me spend more time with my family and less stress and the stressful position with long hours that pays huge money, I'll take the former every time. I don't think I'm unique amongst men in making that choice. Nor am I saying that there aren't women who make the opposite choice. Those of them with the mindset to actively pursue these positions are just lower in number than their male counter-parts.

I absolutely detest the propaganda the feminazi's put out to maintain that women are paid less than men. There should be no job in this country where a woman is paid less than her equally qualified, equally experienced, equally productive male counterpart. If there is one, the woman working in it is sitting on top of a financial windfall thanks to our strong equality legislation. Therefore, we've done all we can in this issue...

I agree. Who the hell do these feminists think they are? Sure here's someone claiming that when you compare like with like (men and women doing roughly the same jobs) that women still earn considerably less.

Feckin feminazi ESRI with their PC agenda.

droidus

Sleepy wrote: »

(b) there is pretty much no such thing as two identically qualified, experienced and productive people - regardless of gender.

Woah there! So are you saying that you can't make direct comparisons between public and private sector workers???

Heresy! :mad:

amacachi

droidus wrote: »

I agree. Who the hell do these feminists think they are? Sure here's someone claiming that when you compare like with like (men and women doing roughly the same jobs) that women still earn considerably less.

Feckin feminazi ESRI with their PC agenda.

8 years ago with data from 16 to 9 years ago.

PeakOutput

ah at least i now know to ignore any of droidus's opinions thanks for that

rugbyman

I like what you say Sleepy, would join that group my self.
This thread reads like it should be in after hours.

if you are right about the equal pay being guaranteed(in the PS ,I assume,) then the highlighted portions of Droidus original post are wrong.

either way they seem to be taken out of context.

Regards,Rugbyman

droidus

amacachi wrote: »

8 years ago with data from 16 to 9 years ago.

Sure, that was just an example of typical feminazi propaganda. Here's more of those PC loons claiming at least an 8% pay gap in 2007.

Sleepy

amacachi wrote: »

8 years ago with data from 16 to 9 years ago.

And I'd question the quality of the data... To analyze this properly would be a nightmare (if not impossible), you'd need:

accurate recording of actual hours worked
accurate length of experience (to account for varying periods of leave taken during the employment period.)
accurate job descriptions including a detailed breakdown of how working hours are spent
accurate performance measures (e.g. contribution to bottom line analysis - impossible for many jobs)

My job relies on me to use data to create information - this is what I do for a living. The ESRI had poor quality data in this case so any information generated off the basis of it is going to be wildly inaccurate.

Count Dooku

40% for everything above 40K
Easy to remember and overpaid civil servants will be not able to hide behind their low-paid colleagues

droidus

Sleepy wrote: »

And I'd question the quality of the data... To analyze this properly would be a nightmare (if not impossible), you'd need:

accurate recording of actual hours worked
accurate length of experience (to account for varying periods of leave taken during the employment period.)
accurate job descriptions including a detailed breakdown of how working hours are spent
accurate performance measures (e.g. contribution to bottom line analysis - impossible for many jobs)

My job relies on me to use data to create information - this is what I do for a living. The ESRI had poor quality data in this case so any information generated off the basis of it is going to be wildly inaccurate.

Thats interesting. So why are we constantly hearing public/private sector pay comparisons if its so difficult to be accurate?

droidus

Count Dooku wrote: »

40% for everything above 40K
Easy to remember and overpaid civil servants will be not able to hide behind their low-paid colleagues

But why should women be paid more in the public sector than the private sector?

Shouldn't both sectors have the same standards?

amacachi

droidus wrote: »

Sure, that was just an example of typical feminazi propaganda. Here's more of those PC loons claiming at least an 8% pay gap in 2007.

If there's anyone I would call PC loons it would be them tbh. :pac:

Still 6 year old data, and as has been said it's pointless comparing without comparing length of service which at the moment will probably still favour men, but give it a few years.
Any mention of how many men compared to women have joined the Live Register over the last 18 months or so?

Sleepy

droidus wrote: »

Woah there! So are you saying that you can't make direct comparisons between public and private sector workers???

Heresy! :mad:

Depends on the job spec tbh. For many of them you can't.

I certainly wouldn't agree with the logic used during benchmarking - for instance that a 3 year Arts degree and 1 year H. Dip in Education should be the basis for salary equality with someone who'd done a (for example) 3 year IT degree and a 1 year H. Dip in Accounting. Sure, the educational equivalence is somewhat comparable but there the similarity between a teacher and a IS Professional ends. They do completely different jobs and as such have to be compensated based off a meaningful measurement of their contribution to the organisation they work for.

Then again, if you have two MCSE certified sys admins maintaining reasonably similar sized networks with the same level of experience you have the basis for some sort of comparison. (Though that does make the assumption that the individuals are both the sole sysadmins or members of teams of the same size and have roughly equal budgets for outside help, equipment upgrades etc. which isn't the case.)

I've met many sysadmins in my time in both public and private sector in Ireland and the UK and in general the private sector guys are of a higher quality even though they're often less certified or 'qualified' (because they don't get sent on so many training courses by their employers). I've met one truly exceptional sysadmin in the public sector who single handedly kept an entire hospital's IT structure going. Unfortunately most of his contemporaries that I've met have been rather lazier and of poorer quality.

amacachi

droidus wrote: »

Thats interesting. So why are we constantly hearing public/private sector pay comparisons if its so difficult to be accurate?

Because it's easy to get averages and medians from each. Though I don't think the comparison is really necessary.
With gender it's more difficult as circumstances are changing and the ratio of men and women in employment etc. is getting closer to 1 so raw earnings comparisons are pointless unless it's length of service is the same and I doubt there are enough situations with enough men and women doing the same work and for the same amount of time to make many meaningful comparisons.

droidus

amacachi wrote: »

If there's anyone I would call PC loons it would be them tbh. :pac:

Still 6 year old data, and as has been said it's pointless comparing without comparing length of service which at the moment will probably still favour men, but give it a few years.

Its 3 years old.

In Table 3.1 we compare unadjusted wage gaps in the 2003 National Employment Survey (NES) with more recent NESs, March 2006 and October 2006, 11 and earlier surveys having similar coverage: the Living in Ireland Surveys (LIS) for 1994, 1997 and 2000, which were conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), and the earlier Survey of Income Distribution and Poverty (SIDP) for 1987, also carried out by the ESRI.12

How recent does the data have to be? Do you believe the pay gap has vanished in the last 3 years?

amacachi

droidus wrote: »

Its 3 years old.

In Table 3.1 we compare unadjusted wage gaps in the 2003 National Employment Survey (NES) with more recent NESs, March 2006 and October 2006, 11 and earlier surveys having similar coverage: the Living in Ireland Surveys (LIS) for 1994, 1997 and 2000, which were conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), and the earlier Survey of Income Distribution and Poverty (SIDP) for 1987, also carried out by the ESRI.12

How recent does the data have to be? Do you believe the pay gap has vanished in the last 3 years?

As I said I believe that most of the paygap is down to factors which will change over time so the gap will tend to reduce.

droidus

Sleepy wrote: »

Depends on the job spec tbh. For many of them you can't.

I certainly wouldn't agree with the logic used during benchmarking - for instance that a 3 year Arts degree and 1 year H. Dip in Education should be the basis for salary equality with someone who'd done a (for example) 3 year IT degree and a 1 year H. Dip in Accounting. Sure, the educational equivalence is somewhat comparable but there the similarity between a teacher and a IS Professional ends. They do completely different jobs and as such have to be compensated based off a meaningful measurement of their contribution to the organisation they work for.

Then again, if you have two MCSE certified sys admins maintaining reasonably similar sized networks with the same level of experience you have the basis for some sort of comparison.

OK thanks. so you're saying that you must be extremely careful when making such comparisons and do so on a case by case basis?

Sleepy

TBH, that's how I believe all employees should be paid what the market sees them as worth on a case by case basis. Salary scales & increments punish good workers while rewarding the worst.

droidus

amacachi wrote: »

As I said I believe that most of the paygap is down to factors which will change over time so the gap will tend to reduce.

Hmm... According to the equality authority, it took 20 years to go from 80% of men's wages to 86% from '87 - '06.

So at roughly 3% a decade, with a bit of luck women will have equal pay sometime in the next 40-50 years.

Sleepy

Unless women's priorities change as a group; enforced parental leave for both fathers and mothers is brought in; equal status as parents is granted to both men and women (regardless of marriage) and strict adherance to a 35 hour working week is enforced , if one of these surveys shows men and women as having equal pay it'll be safe to say that women are earning more than men.