Tax net to catch low-pay workers

dromdrom

Count Dooku wrote: »

Not too many of them will be in middle class in 2015
Left wing populism is reliable source of votes and it will make a lot of sense to leave all problems for sorting FF mess to current opposition.
FF will be in perfect position in 2015. They did everything to avoid further cuts in public sector and welfare, it were PS unions, who forced them to impose tax on low paid, they paid a fortune bank bailouts, but it spared economy from immediate collapse and everything else will be FG/LP fault.

Interesting theory and does make intuitive sense, however I have my doubts as to whether FF will simply cede power (is a distinct possibility though) , on the other hand maybe it is just me desperately wanting to see somebody step up to the plate on tackling entitlements ( The irony of seeing Fianna Fail as the Irish version of the Tea Party movement is not lost on me )

ardmacha

does anyone have a report which shows the PS do not enjoy a premium compensation?

Does anyone have a report of any sort which gives pay at 2010 levels, post paycuts etc?

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

Does anyone have a report of any sort which gives pay at 2010 levels, post paycuts etc?

So thats a No then?

Can you show me a 2009/08/07 etc. report that comes close and we can manually subtract the pay cuts from the compensation package?

I can show you a Dept of Finance report post pension & voluntary reductions of 19%+ (Q4 2009), which recommends further cuts of between 8 and 20% for the top earners in the PS..
http://www.reviewbody.gov.ie/Documents/Report%2044.pdf

The conclusion is a peach

"Conclusion
We recognise that our recommendations are severe, but consider them warranted in
the light of the unprecedented circumstances being encountered. Those in secure jobs
are privileged and should make a significant sacrifice. It is unacceptable that
borrowing should be required to fund public service pay."

ardmacha

I can show you a Dept of Finance report post pension & voluntary reductions of 19%+ (Q4 2009), which recommends further cuts of between 8 and 20% for the top earners in the PS..

There is no doubt that the Taoiseach, Ministers and the like are overpaid, even if you don't count the free cars etc. These make up a small number though.




If someone is in the top third of this they would have been only 7-10% overpaid, but have lost 15-20% from pay since this data. People in stable jobs in the private sector would not have lost more than 5-7% on average, so the gap is gone.

Welease

ardmacha wrote: »

There is no doubt that the Taoiseach, Ministers and the like are overpaid, even if you don't count the free cars etc. These make up a small number though.




If someone is in the top third of this they would have been only 7-10% overpaid, but have lost 15-20% from pay since this data. People in stable jobs in the private sector would not have lost more than 5-7% on average, so the gap is gone.

They make up 1.5%... So the top are overpaid, and the lower levels are overpaid.. and the guys in the middle are overpaid..

So who exactly isn't overpaid in the PS?

(btw posting figures like 5-7% on average without providing a source is not considered an arguement, I'm assuming you do have a source for these numbers ... correct?)

Edit - And I'm guessing the graph is earnings alone, not compensation. If you add in the DB pension benefits received, the perceived 15-20% reduction is removed immediately.. (and another 10% could be added).. Further increasing the gap

Count Dooku

Hungarian PM vows tax cuts, targets banks, FX loans - Reuters

(Reuters) - Hungary's prime minister vowed on Tuesday to introduce a flat income tax and a tariff on banks, cut public pay and ban foreign currency mortgages as he strove to reassure investors he can contain the budget deficit.

ZYX

Welease wrote: »

I can show you a Dept of Finance report post pension & voluntary reductions of 19%+ (Q4 2009), which recommends further cuts of between 8 and 20% for the top earners in the PS..
http://www.reviewbody.gov.ie/Documents/Report%2044.pdf

The conclusion is a peach

"Conclusion
We recognise that our recommendations are severe, but consider them warranted in
the light of the unprecedented circumstances being encountered. Those in secure jobs
are privileged and should make a significant sacrifice. It is unacceptable that
borrowing should be required to fund public service pay."

And after this report came out their pay was cut by 10-20% . The cuts were recommended not so much because they were felt to be overpaid but that public finances were so bad. What's your point?

Welease

ZYX wrote: »

And after this report came out their pay was cut by 10-20% . The cuts were recommended not so much because they were felt to be overpaid but that public finances were so bad. What's your point?

My point is fairly obvious.. It is a counter to those who still insist on stating that the PS is not overpaid and therefore the burden of paying for this mess should fall on everyone equally (including the lowest paid). The tax net does need to be widened, but the PS needs to continue to be brought in line with the market rates of compensation for the work done in conjunction.

I have provided multiple sources for my continued ascertain that there is scope for more reductions within the PS.

Those who claim the PS are not overpaid have not yet provided a single source to backup their claims.

ZYX

Welease wrote: »

My point is fairly obvious.. It is a counter to those who still insist on stating that the PS is not overpaid and therefore the burden of paying for this mess should fall on everyone equally (including the lowest paid). The tax net does need to be widened, but the PS needs to continue to be brought in line with the market rates of compensation for the work done in conjunction.

I have provided multiple sources for my continued ascertain that there is scope for more reductions within the PS.

Those who claim the PS are not overpaid have not yet provided a single source to backup their claims.

I am not trying to defend the public service, but, you quote a report saying that pay should be reduced. Pay has been reduced as recommended so this group is now not overpaid or have I missed something.

Welease

ZYX wrote: »

I am not trying to defend the public service, but, you quote a report saying that pay should be reduced. Pay has been reduced as recommended so this group is now not overpaid or have I missed something.

That was a single report, which only deals with the top levels of management in the PS (about 1.5%).. and again people are taking it out of context to suit their invalid points.. The reductions you quote and the figures in the report are pay not total compensation. If you add 30% to that sum for pension (as per Pension Insecurity in Ireland report) then the top guys are still overpaid/overcompensated compared to the market

The report also doesn't deal with the other 98.5% of PS workers, which the other reports linked do (and they also show over compensation)..

These report have been linked on here hundreds of times, and yet week after week we have the PS coming on here stating that they do not receive any compensation premiums. In relation to this thread, folks are stating the PS is not over compensated, and therefore any fix for the current fiscal situations needs to come for tax hikes with no further impact to the PS (and that is the only fair approach). Personally (as stated) I disagree, and believe that tax net does need to be widened, AND the PS bill needs to be brought into line with the current market conditions also.

Example's

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The only like for like comparison between public and private service jobs found that public service workers were underpaid - that is an undeniable fact but what's the bets you won't accept that???!!!

deise blue wrote: »

My argument starts from a different basis than yours , I don't believe that the Public Sector is overpaid .

Based on that premise the only alternative is an equitable tax system where people pay according to their means.

When asked to provide a single piece of counter evidence (as in a report or data to backup the claims of parity)... none is ever produced ..

Riskymove

Welease wrote: »

If you add 30% to that sum for pension (as per Pension Insecurity in Ireland report) then the top guys are still overpaid/overcompensated compared to the market

30%???

surely the premium is the bit that they dont pay for

this would make it around 17%?

in addition some are contributing to OAP pension through PRSI which is deducted from their pension

also in most private sector pensions chemes the employer contributes some percentage, take that off and you reduce the premium further?

The report also doesn't deal with the other 98.5% of PS workers, which the other reports linked do (and they also show over compensation)..

I am not sure that it does show that.

Those reports all come from different angles but essentially they are saying things like that if you take two people with similar backgrounds one in the PS will earn a % more than one in the private sector

I am not sure any overtly state that PS are 'overpaid'


In addition, the value of PS pension chemes have already been taking into account on at least two occassions when recommending pay increases...how many times must the PS be penalised for the same thing?

therefore any fix for the current fiscal situations needs to come for tax hikes with no further impact to the PS (and that is the only fair approach). Personally (as stated) I disagree, and believe that tax net does need to be widened, AND the PS bill needs to be brought into line with the current market conditions also.

You are overlooking the fact that tax hikes would also reduce PS take-home pay ..........but at least would be applied to workers generally not confining to one sector....I think that is what they are saying

there are other, more productive, ways of reducing the cost of the public sector without continually hitting wages

Welease

Riskymove wrote: »

30%???

surely the premium is the bit that they dont pay for

this would make it around 17%?

in addition some are contributing to OAP pension through PRSI which is deducted from their pension

also in most private sector pensions chemes the employer contributes some percentage, take that off and you reduce the premium further?

Agreed, and the specifics will differ from scheme to scheme.. the generic point (and yes i know generic's and averages are open to all sorts of twisting ) is that the graph displayed by the previous poster does not show the complete picture, and simple deducting X% amount does not mean in actuallity that are receiving less compensation that counterparts.
And in the case of many PS members, they have not paid that contribution for the amount of pension years already accrued through their years of service.

Riskymove wrote: »

I am not sure that it does show that.

Those reports all come from different angles but essentially they are saying things like that if you take two people with similar backgrounds one in the PS will earn a % more than one in the private sector

I am not sure any overtly state that PS are 'overpaid'

Many state that the PS recieve a pay premium.. I used the term overpaid.. and imho being paid more than the market is being overpaid. We can split hairs on terminology , but do you consider that the PS are paid less/equal the private sector for comparable roles/skills, and if so do you have any data to illustrate this?

Riskymove wrote: »

In addition, the value of PS pension chemes have already been taking into account on at least two occassions when recommending pay increases...how many times must the PS be penalised for the same thing?

Penalised? Please explain.. if a role is still being paid more than the market average how has that person been penalised?

Riskymove wrote: »

You are overlooking the fact that tax hikes would also reduce PS take-home pay ..........but at least would be applied to workers generally not confining to one sector....I think that is what they are saying

there are other, more productive, ways of reducing the cost of the public sector without continually hitting wages

Yes there are, and should we only do one?.. There is no reason why the PS should continue to enjoy a compensation premium when the country can't afford it. No single solution will solve the fiscal issues, and no single problem should be left unaddressed.

Riskymove

Welease wrote: »

Many state that the PS recieve a pay premium.. I used the term overpaid.. and imho being paid more than the market is being overpaid. We can split hairs on terminology , but do you consider that the PS are paid less/equal the private sector for comparable roles/skills, and if so do you have any data to illustrate this?

No I dont consider that they are paid less, generally speaking.

But i think that simply comparing wages based on background etc does not show the whole picture...different organsiations have different structures and career paths etc

PS pay has gotten out of synch in certain areas, definetely...one need only look at the gaps between certain grades within the PS before and after the boom years to see that

but there are always issues...who exaclty are we comparing PS workers to when we talk about 'comparable work'? Civil service to bank workers or similar?

other areas I am not so sure...for example a Guard or a nurse...how exactly can you compare to the private sector for 'comparable work'

Penalised? Please explain.. if a role is still being paid more than the market average how has that person been penalised?

my point is about the pension issue......the value of PS penions has already been factored into pay agreements in previous deals...how many times should this be used as an excuse to reduce pay levels?

No single solution will solve the fiscal issues, and no single problem should be left unaddressed.

i agree, but lets see some of the other things done first

ardmacha

The point is that PS pay has been reduced, substantially in some cases. Private sector pay has been reduced, but to different extents in different sectors. So aggregrate figures are no longer very useful, a new benchmarking or similar is needed (an honest one this time). Such a thing has not been mentioned, which makes me wonder if anything really has changed.

deise blue

The latest report is that of the CSO dated the 1/10/09 which shows the differential in pay as being 19.1% ( now closer to 14% after the most recent pay cuts ) and give a figure of 12% being the premium for the DB pension , a figure that the Dept. of Finance also agree with.

Other posters have given CSO figures from 2007 which were amended by the aforementioned report of 1/10/09 and from a pension report in 2007 which does not of course include the 7.5% pension levy.

It seems clear to me from the unbiased CSO report that pay differentials of 30 to 50% and a pension premium are way off the mark.

ei.sdraob

deise blue wrote: »

The latest report is that of the CSO dated the 1/10/09 which shows the differential in pay as being 19.1% ( now closer to 14% after the most recent pay cuts ) and give a figure of 12% being the premium for the DB pension , a figure that the Dept. of Finance also agree with.

Other posters have given CSO figures from 2007 which were amended by the aforementioned report of 1/10/09 and from a pension report in 2007 which does not of course include the 7.5% pension levy.

It seems clear to me from the unbiased CSO report that pay differentials of 30 to 50% and a pension premium are way off the mark.

whats the "premium" on having a safe and guaranteed job

its shocking that the unions are against having their members jobs guaranteed for few years, especially in this day and age

come of the public sector cookoo cloud and welcome to the real world where people have to work for a living, not be "entitled" to one just because they are members of an organized racket

Welease

deise blue wrote: »

The latest report is that of the CSO dated the 1/10/09 which shows the differential in pay as being 19.1% ( now closer to 14% after the most recent pay cuts ) and give a figure of 12% being the premium for the DB pension , a figure that the Dept. of Finance also agree with.

Other posters have given CSO figures from 2007 which were amended by the aforementioned report of 1/10/09 and from a pension report in 2007 which does not of course include the 7.5% pension levy.

It seems clear to me from the unbiased CSO report that pay differentials of 30 to 50% and a pension premium are way off the mark.

But the differential is not anywhere near 0 or equality (by the figures you quote here).. Yet you continue to claim..

deise blue wrote: »

My argument starts from a different basis than yours , I don't believe that the Public Sector is overpaid .

Based on that premise the only alternative is an equitable tax system where people pay according to their means.

Explain...

deise blue

Welease wrote: »

But the differential is not anywhere near 0 or equality (by the figures you quote here).. Yet you continue to claim..




Explain...

I repeat because pro rata the Public Sector has an older profile and has more employees with 3rd level degrees , factors that effect salaries no matter what sector you work in.

Now if you would'nt mind explaining why you rely so heavily on data from 2007 when there is more up to date stats to hand ?

Perhaps because the out of date data suits your arguments more ?

dromdrom

deise blue wrote: »

I repeat because pro rata the Public Sector has an older profile and has more employees with 3rd level degrees , factors that effect salaries no matter what sector you work in.

Now if you would'nt mind explaining why you rely so heavily on data from 2007 when there is more up to date stats to hand ?

Perhaps because the out of date data suits your arguments more ?

To be honest mate you really are trying to defend the indefensible, anybody trying to play the poor mouth when defending the Public Sector is either deluded or dishonest, the issue now is not about the Public Sector pay premium, for all the white noise and smoke and mirrors going on it is a fact that there is a premium and these silly arguments to the contrary just detract from the core of the problem, i.e do we reduce the pay bill through cuts or through reorganistation and how do we do it in a manner which produces the least collateral damage to the rest of the country.

thebaldsoprano

deise blue wrote: »

I repeat because pro rata the Public Sector has an older profile and has more employees with 3rd level degrees , factors that effect salaries no matter what sector you work in.

Now if you would'nt mind explaining why you rely so heavily on data from 2007 when there is more up to date stats to hand ?

Perhaps because the out of date data suits your arguments more ?

I take it you're getting you're 19.1% figure from this report, which also uses 2007 data?

That report weighted the data based on education and age among other things and still found a premium. So how is it then that the PS isn't being overpaid?

Needless to say, you can conclude anything from a faulty premise - including the 'necessity' of taking money from the lowest paid to grease the gravy train.

Welease

deise blue wrote: »

I repeat because pro rata the Public Sector has an older profile and has more employees with 3rd level degrees , factors that effect salaries no matter what sector you work in.

Now if you would'nt mind explaining why you rely so heavily on data from 2007 when there is more up to date stats to hand ?

Perhaps because the out of date data suits your arguments more ?

If that data did exist, then you no doubt would have produced it here (as per the charter) to back up you case.. you have consistantly avoided producing it..

So once again, show me any report which displays parity between PS and PrS pay and benefits as you claim exists..

deise blue

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I take it you're getting you're 19.1% figure from this report, which also uses 2007 data?

That report weighted the data based on education and age among other things and still found a premium. So how is it then that the PS isn't being overpaid?

Needless to say, you can conclude anything from a faulty premise - including the 'necessity' of taking money from the lowest paid to grease the gravy train.

Yes that is the report that I referred to , issued by the CSO on the 1/10/09 which people seem reluctant to quote as it makes absolute nonsense of claims of pay differentials of 30 to 50% and a premium of 30% for the DB pension.

The report also points out that it is impossible to provide a like for like job comparison basis and as such cannot say that the premiums outlined in the report were undeserved.

This argument in all probability will be rendered moot in the coming days if the Croke Park deal , if as expected , goes through as the government will not have access to the PS well in terms of cost savings for the next number of years.

Indeed with an election in 2012 what price a part reversal of the pay cuts prior to that election?

thebaldsoprano

deise blue wrote: »

The report also points out that it is impossible to provide a like for like job comparison basis and as such cannot say that the premiums outlined in the report were undeserved.

Okay, well how about pointing us to a report which supports your premise that the premium is deserved?

You've already been asked for a link to such a report on this thread, btw.

Welease

deise blue wrote: »

Yes that is the report that I referred to , issued by the CSO on the 1/10/09 which people seem reluctant to quote as it makes absolute nonsense of claims of pay differentials of 30 to 50% and a premium of 30% for the DB pension.

Still avoiding the question i see...

You quote that report, which shows a differential of 19.1%.. you claim a 5% reduction which means 14.1% premium plus the 12% pension (your figures not mine..)..

So once again, for the 3rd or 4th time.. How can there you claim the PS are not enjoying a premium on their wages (when there is not a single report that claims otherwise), when even your own figures add up to a 26.1% premium.....

Idbatterim

they should sort out the Public Servants non taxable lump sum on retirement and ridiculous pensions! Where is all that money going to go? probably into a bank account for years until they kick the bucket and leave it to their kids, atleast with the majority on welfare, all their money goes back out again and circulates in the economy!

Welease

Idbatterim wrote: »

they should sort out the Public Servants non taxable lump sum on retirement and ridiculous pensions! Where is all that money going to go? probably into a bank account for years until they kick the bucket and leave it to their kids, atleast with the majority on welfare, all their money goes back out again and circulates in the economy!

A more pertinent question is.. where is that money coming from? The current PS pension defecit is estimated at over 108 BILLION Euro.. That puts Anglo in perspective

Riskymove

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Okay, well how about pointing us to a report which supports your premise that the premium is deserved?

xcan you provide a link to a report that says it is undeserved

thebaldsoprano

Riskymove wrote: »

xcan you provide a link to a report that says it is undeserved

Nope, but I think skepticism is a more reasonable position until this information comes to light. If two people have similar levels of education and experience and one of them is being paid 19.1% more, it's fair enough to ask for justification of this.

Riskymove

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Nope

interesting isn't it

but I think skepticism is a more reasonable position until this information comes to light.

a position which few would accept from PS workers

If two people have similar levels of education and experience and one of them is being paid 19.1% more, it's fair enough to ask for justification of this.

how comparable is the work? duties etc?

which is performing better? etc etc

bonuses, overtime?

in any event, as we all know by now you are talking about averages

many people on the private side will be paid more than PS and vice versa

it is the twisting of such facts above into statements like 'public servants are paid 19% more than private sector workers' which causes the problems in discussing such matters

thebaldsoprano

Okay, let's say I take on a new task in work that none of my colleagues are doing. I then go to my boss and ask for 19.1% pay rise. He asks me to justify this and I come out with:

Riskymove wrote: »

how comparable is the work? duties etc?

which is performing better? etc etc

bonuses, overtime?

Would he be unreasonable not to give it to me?

Head The Wall

I think a look at the state of the HSE and the many other govt bodies is enough of a report to say any premium is undeserved.

Sure those people that told the parents to go and kill their babies is still working and has had no repercussions.

Riskymove

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Okay, let's say I take on a new task in work that none of my colleagues are doing. I then go to my boss and ask for 19.1% pay rise. He asks me to justify this and I come out with:

you are still basing the perspective as one where two people working together at the same thing are paid differently...its a false one when looking at the report in question

Would he be unreasonable not to give it to me?

I would say it depends on a number of factors, what it was you were doing and what it was worth to your org, how much you are paid etc

thebaldsoprano

Riskymove wrote: »

I would say it depends on a number of factors, what it was you were doing and what it was worth to your org, how much you are paid etc

And would it be reasonable for him to ask me to justify these factors?

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

I think a look at the state of the HSE and the many other govt bodies is enough of a report to say any premium is undeserved.

I was waiting for something like that

the systemic problems in the HSE do not necessarily mean that no Doctor, Nurse or indeed manager deserves their wage

Sure those people that told the parents to go and kill their babies is still working and has had no repercussions.

typical of your recent line of commentary really

Riskymove

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

And would it be reasonable for him to ask me to justify these factors?

of course

Head The Wall

It's hard for you to fight the truth is it.

The facts speak for themselves the majority of public services are crap. So no they shouldn't deserve a premium

thebaldsoprano

Riskymove wrote: »

of course

So he takes a position of sketicism until I show otherwise and justify the increase.

Similarly, asking for justification of the PS premium is reasonable and it's not up to me to counter this before such justification is provided.

Riskymove

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

So he takes a position of sketicism until I show otherwise and justify the increase.

Similarly, asking for justification of the PS premium is reasonable and it's not up to me to counter this before such justification is provided.

my point is that in the reports you mentioned it cannot be justified as there is no direct comparable work as in your scenario


btw to be clear here i am not stating that the premium is actually deserved or not

under your logic i can however ask why my pay should be dropped by 19.1% and for the factors to be justified and remain skeptical until then

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

The facts speak for themselves

Facts? surely you mean your opinion speaks for itself

thebaldsoprano

Riskymove wrote: »

my point is that in the reports you mentioned it cannot be justified as there is no direct comparable work as in your scenario

Neither was there direct comparable work in my scenario though, and you just agreed that it would be reasonable for my boss to justify an increase:

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Okay, let's say I take on a new task in work that none of my colleagues are doing.

Riskymove wrote: »

btw to be clear here i am not stating that the premium is actually deserved or not

Neither am I. I'm just arguing that a position of skepicism is reasonable.

Riskymove wrote: »

under your logic i can however ask why my pay should be dropped by 19.1% and for the factors to be justified and remain skeptical until then

Absolutely! And I don't doubt for a minute that there are some CS/PS workers who probably deserve a raise rather than a cut. However, one of the factors that invariably comes into these situations is how the company, or state, is doing financially. And unfortunately for both the private and public sector, the answer is usually 'not too well right now'.

Welease

Riskymove wrote: »

Facts? surely you mean your opinion speaks for itself

Riskymove wrote: »

my point is that in the reports you mentioned it cannot be justified as there is no direct comparable work as in your scenario

Would it not be the case that

- If the ESRI report in 2009 (http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20091102110232/WP321.pdf), did an indept study into the differences from 2003-2006 (and included qualifications, experience, shifts, overtime, supervisory responsibility, weekly hours, secondary, 3rd level education, professional body membership, sex, trade union membership and role comparison etc. into the calculations) and found a large premium to the benefit of the PS.

- Subsequent reports from the CSO (2007) and the 2009 updated version found similar premiums in the favour of the PS..

Then a logical leap could be made that there exists a pay premium in favour of the PS, which is in fact clearly demonstrated and evident and has factored in a whole host of variables (some listed above) which you folks keep blindly repeating don't exist?

They do exist, and they have been published here many times..

Riskymove

Welease wrote: »

They do exist, and they have been published here many times..

I have never stated that there is not a pay premium

I am saying that the pay premium is not the same as the simplistic ideas that 'Public sector workers earn 19% more than private sector workers'.

I also do not agree that similar work roles can be sufficiently identified to do a straight comparison, indeed, if they did the ESRI would not need to do complex studies like they did in an attempt to identify a premium.

also none of these reports make any judgement on wether or not the premium (or indeed any premium) is justified

the main factor in the gap between private and opublic wage increases over 2003-2006 was benchmarking. this was a political fairytale which should never have happened.

long-term posters here will be aware that my view prior to the recent budget decisions on paycuts was that any oaycut should be the reversal of becnhmarking and it should be consigned to history

thebaldsoprano wrote:

Neither was there direct comparable work in my scenario though, and you just agreed that it would be reasonable for my boss to justify an increase:

your example was two people working together doing the same thing and then one of them taking on a new task

that is, with respect, nothing like a direct comparison between a public and private worker

Head The Wall

Riskymove wrote: »

Facts? surely you mean your opinion speaks for itself

So all the official reports in the papers are only my opinion they are not real.

Banking, health, FAS, Teaching, Grade Inflation, Govt themselves and on and on.

Take off the blinkers buddy. Public services are crap and here you are claiming they are not.

Here's some facts for you


The HSE is ‘world class’

Professor Brendan Drumm says the HSE is ‘world class’. He’s right.

World class at cancelling operations in children’s hospitals

World class at telling people who fear they might have cancer that they don’t have cancer and then going ‘Ooops. You know what? You do have cancer! So sorry about that … oh, you’re dead.’

World class at creating a two-tier health system

World class at paying consultants huge wages when some consultants say they don’t have enough work to do and those in similar positions in other countries are paid far less, leaving aside the cost of the support staff each consultant needs

World class at providing fewer beds and increasing wait times. ‘What’s that? Need to see a consultant? They’re all busy until March 2011. Unless you have health insurance then how does next Thursday sound?’

World class at the ‘See how many patients we can sleep on trollies’ championships (they bring home the gold every time).

World class at providing a buffer for an obese buffoon of a Health Minister who has no business being in government and who can wash her hands of every problem and accept no responsibility

World class at being overblown with administration staff yet cooking their books to try and make out as if they aren’t

World class at making the jobs of important staff such as doctors and nurses as difficult as they can possibily make them

World class at trying to close wonderful facilities such as St Lukes in Dublin to create so-called ‘centres of excellence’ when leaving St Lukes open would be excellence and moving all those people to the filthy ****hole that is St James’s Hospital is not

World class at paying their Chief Executive a massive bonus for doing what most people would consider to be a pretty terrible job

World class at closing A&E units and hospital wards

World class at dissembling, spinning and duplicity while tackling problems without excuse making or setting up committees to look into the committee which was set up to look into the committee to investigate something that people can’t remember anymore

World class all right.

Third world class.

On reflection, that’s unfair. To third world health services.

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

So all the official reports in the papers are only my opinion they are not real.

Banking, health, FAS, Teaching, Grade Inflation, Govt themselves and on and on.

banking?

as for the others, as usual you decide as there are issues that the entire health, FAS and teaching sectors are failures

thats fairly lazy thinking..please try thinking beyond tabloid soundbites

there is no doubt that there are serious problems with the health services but your view that that means that no doctor or nurse or other employee deserevs their wage is something I cannot agree with

in addition i could produce a lot of reports castigating private sector actions too but i would not suggest that that meant the majority of private services were failures or that no private sector worker deserved their wage

Head The Wall

Riskymove wrote: »

banking?

as for the others, as usual you decide as there are issues that the entire health, FAS and teaching sectors are failures

thats fairly lazy thinking..please try thinking beyond tabloid soundbites

there is no doubt that there are serious problems with the health services but your view that that means that no doctor or nurse or other employee deserevs their wage is something I cannot agree with

in addition i could produce a lot of reports castigating private sector actions too but i would not suggest that that meant the majority of private services were failures or that no private sector worker deserved their wage

Central Bank & Financial Regulator

I'm not tarring every single person but the problems relate to more than 1 or 2 people in every sector. There's no denying that, the rot is endemic.

I have a choice though and I don't pay for crappy private sector services. That point is moot in fairness. I have to pay for crappy Public Sector services.

Welease

Riskymove wrote: »

I have never stated that there is not a pay premium

You might not have, but you joined the thread mid way after others had claimed there was no pay premium

Riskymove wrote: »

I am saying that the pay premium is not the same as the simplistic ideas that 'Public sector workers earn 19% more than private sector workers'.

I also do not agree that similar work roles can be sufficiently identified to do a straight comparison, indeed, if they did the ESRI would not need to do complex studies like they did in an attempt to identify a premium.

Point is.. they did the indept study that people claim doesn't exist, and they found the premium that people claim doesn't exist..

I disagree, those studies go in depth enough to show a disparity of similar roles. It is often trotted our here (as usual without any evidence to back this up) that it's impossible to draw comparisons between the sectors.. Pure rubbish
What does an IT specialist in PS do that an IT specialist in the PrS can't/does not do?
Same for Doctors, Nurses, Financial Controllers, Construction, Supervisors, Accountants, Canteen ladies, Administrators, Security etc etc etc.. There are very very few roles within the PS that are not also done in the PrS, and therefore an comparison can be done in exactly the same way that comparisons are done across the private sector to define the market rate for specific roles.

Riskymove wrote: »

also none of these reports make any judgement on wether or not the premium (or indeed any premium) is justified

Of course they don't.. they state the facts it's up for commentators/analysts to decide if they are justified. I haven't found a single independant analysis that has stated they are justified (which should tell you something). If they are going to remain in place, while this country is broke, then the onus should be on the PS to justify the premium (not the other way round).. We are cutting funding for many other projects which have real valid justifications for continued funding, why should the PS wage bill be immune to the same scrutiny?

Riskymove wrote: »

your example was two people working together doing the same thing and then one of them taking on a new task

that is, with respect, nothing like a direct comparison between a public and private worker

Misquote? I never said that.. (I assume you are responding to someone else here)

Nijmegen

Riskymove wrote: »

I have never stated that there is not a pay premium

I am saying that the pay premium is not the same as the simplistic ideas that 'Public sector workers earn 19% more than private sector workers'.

I also do not agree that similar work roles can be sufficiently identified to do a straight comparison, indeed, if they did the ESRI would not need to do complex studies like they did in an attempt to identify a premium.

also none of these reports make any judgement on wether or not the premium (or indeed any premium) is justified

the main factor in the gap between private and opublic wage increases over 2003-2006 was benchmarking. this was a political fairytale which should never have happened.

long-term posters here will be aware that my view prior to the recent budget decisions on paycuts was that any oaycut should be the reversal of becnhmarking and it should be consigned to history



your example was two people working together doing the same thing and then one of them taking on a new task

that is, with respect, nothing like a direct comparison between a public and private worker

Well, the ERSI report created a level playing field by accounting for factors such as education, sex, managerial position, etc.

Public sector workers don't work on the moon. A financial controller in the public sector does the same job as one in the private sector. As does an IT technician. Or a driver. Or a vet. Or a clerk. Or a Director.

Heck, all the quangos have adopted a style to bring them in line with private sector organizations - CEO's, directors, charters, boards, etc.

Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that the majority of PS workers do work completely different to the private sector?

The exceptions being the emergency services and so forth... Who are a minority within the PS, yet you'd think that every second person on the payroll was a guard or a nurse rather than a pencil pusher or a regular joe worker to look at the propoganda about pay.

Riskymove

Welease wrote: »

You might not have, but you joined the thread mid way after others had claimed there was no pay premium

Point is.. they did the indept study that people claim doesn't exist, and they found the premium that people claim doesn't exist..

thats for others to answer so

I disagree, those studies go in depth enough to show a disparity of similar roles. It is often trotted our here (as usual without any evidence to back this up) that it's impossible to draw comparisons between the sectors.. Pure rubbish

its difficult rather than 'impossible'

most PS workers do not have a private sector direct comparator

can we try and comapre them to something sort of similar...sure

I would suggest that for medical staff that the premium is unlikely to be on the public side, certainly for a doctor

IT, accounts etc fair enough but what sort of percentage of PS in those areas?

why should the PS wage bill be immune to the same scrutiny?

sorry, are you suggesting the PS pay bill has not been scrutinised or actions taken?

Misquote? I never said that.. (I assume you are responding to someone else here)

yep, my fault...i have edited

Riskymove

Nijmegen wrote: »

Public sector workers don't work on the moon.

actually, those that have gone to the moon were public sector employees!!

Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that the majority of PS workers do work completely different to the private sector?

The exceptions being the emergency services and so forth... Who are a minority within the PS, yet you'd think that every second person on the payroll was a guard or a nurse rather than a pencil pusher or a regular joe worker to look at the propoganda about pay.

the majority of PS workers are in health and education

thebaldsoprano

Riskymove wrote: »

its difficult rather than 'impossible'

most PS workers do not have a private sector direct comparator

can we try and comapre them to something sort of similar...sure

Well how about letting the market decide then?

This is what's happening in the private sector at the moment. Something tells me the unions that are holding the country to ransom wouldn't be too happy about that though.