How much will PS pay be cut by ?

Qualitymark

What we should be doing is getting together, really, not turning on each other. Public servants are relatively lucky - secure jobs, secure and lavish pensions - but there's no point in public and private sector people fighting over this.

The country is rapidly becoming horribly un-egalitarian, a bad, bad thing for all kinds of social outcomes (read epidemiologists Wilkinson & Pickett's The Spirit Level for the lowdown on this), and this is what we need to tackle.

kippy

sarumite wrote: »

Neither the pension levy nor contributions are contributing to the exchequer. They are contributing towards your nest egg for retirement....along with a an approx. further 9% contribution from your employer.

Lets be fecking honest here - that would have been the case had the country been in better fettle - right now these "contributions" and indeed a large amount of taxation income from the country as a whole is being and has been pumped into the black hole that is Anglo and the other slightly smaller but none the less expensive black holes that are Quinn, BoI, AIB, ILP etc etc

Now, I have no problem paying towards a pension however in the PS it is not an option NOT to pay into a pension. There are many (especially younger less well paid) PS workers out there that would probably prefer to differ paying into their pension until they can afford it (having other more pertinant bills to pay in the meantime)

On the subject of how much the PS pay will be cut. Again, I will follow through what I have always said on the topic - there are numerous areas and sections within the PS that costs can be saved - no insignificent costs either and the purpose of the CPA was to get that done. To be honest parts of it are happening and have been implemented however the attitude hasnt changed enough. Budgets are still given out to be spent - instead of the opposite attitude. The top brass are still too many in number and there are far too many people in middle management who do not provide a direct service nor improve the service provided to the public, which at the end of the day is what it is all about.
There are many fine people in the PS and there are many not so fine people in there effecting the whole operation and attitude of the service. These need to be weeded out and the attitude changed from within.

Right now the country is still in a jock we're stuck for the cash however still the CPA protects the wages of the PS in general so it is unlikely this time around that wages will directly be cut - there may be some indirect cuts involved however.
In the early part of next year when everyone realises that we are going to possibly default (something I never though possible until recently) the ****e will truely hit the fan.

RobbieTheRobber

OMD wrote: »

Why do PS workers constantly ask for others to provide proof while they very rarely do? There have been multiple studies showing how PS workers are paid more than others. On average PS worker earns about 50% more than the private sector and worked less hours. Links to this have been shown many times on boards.ie (often by myself) but they get ignored or else someone makes some silly remark like "you can't trust statistics" or "well that is not my experience" or "that includes very high paid" so RobbieTheRobber, why don't you show us some figures to show PS workers did not "make more money during ( and after ) the boom than those who work in the private sector".

I await the usual comments "Look it up yourself", "Why should I" or just the usual, where the request is totally ignored.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/statisticalyearbook/2010/Chapter%2017%20Earnings.pdf
Quarter 4 2009 Public Sector average earnings €962.14 for 31.9 Hours
Quarter 4 2009 Private Sector average earnings €630.66 for 32.3 Hours

There isnt a face palm picture big enough for you reply!

Avergage private sector earnings dont show any sectorial splits of earnings so proves nothing absolutely nothing.

Are you trying to doubt that there were in the private sector certain sections which made very high earnings during the boom?

In fact even trying to argue with you is pointless, when your opening statement is the public sector made more from the boom than anyone else. Can you tell me is this an average everyone else or can i pick sectors which made more to disprove you?

:rolleyes:

OMD

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

There isnt a face palm picture big enough for you reply!

Avergage private sector earnings dont show any sectorial splits of earnings so proves nothing absolutely nothing.

Are you trying to doubt that there were in the private sector certain sections which made very high earnings during the boom?

In fact even trying to argue with you is pointless, when your opening statement is the public sector made more from the boom than anyone else. Can you tell me is this an average everyone else or can i pick sectors which made more to disprove you?

:rolleyes:

Irish bob said
[/quote]"on average , those who work in the public sector made more money during ( and after ) the boom than those who work in the private sector"[/quote]

to which you said:

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What a bizarre statement!

Could you provide me some details of how you came to this conclusion!

I gave you the facts and figures to back up irishbobs statement but more importantly I asked you to give some figures to back up your point. I have no problem with you disagreeing with the figures but either back up your point or else accept that IrishBob (and I) were right.

So RobbieTheRobber, put up or shut up (meant of course in the nicest way).

OMD

ardmacha wrote: »

You do have a point OMD. But this point is diminished by this typical conflation of past and present tense. When you say that PS are paid 50% more, ignoring the pension levy and pay cuts you reduce your case since you do not note these things or make an estimate at measuring their effect. And the number of hours worked is not significantly different.

Obviously the pension levy doesn't count as private sector workers have to fund pensions also. The link I gave shows comparrison with private sector workers back to 2005. The reference was to during and after the boom so I linked figures to both.

With regards the pay cuts to PS workers, it doesn't really change things. If average PS worker had a 6% pay cut and no pay increment (yeah right), and if we also assume no private sector worker had a pay cut then average PS pay comes down to €904 compared to the €631 for private sector. Still makes it 43% more.

RobbieTheRobber

OMD wrote: »

rambling post

You didnt give facts you gave average numbers across one sector of over 300k and the other figure for a collective of workers called the private sector. Where exactly are the facts?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What was the average wage of a solicitor during the boom?
Or to use examples form this thread a bricklayer?

You have done nothing to show that the public sector earned more than the private sector except on averages.

Seeing as your using this average figure, what types of work does this average use and what is the average amount of hours worked?

On average the private sector earns more than ps members of the CPSU.

Im sure a person who earns less than the average industrial wage in the PS will be delighted to know that on average their sector of 300k earns more than the private sector but that doesnt really help the individual!

RobbieTheRobber

OMD wrote: »

Obviously the pension levy doesn't count as private sector workers have to fund pensions also. The link I gave shows comparrison with private sector workers back to 2005. The reference was to during and after the boom so I linked figures to both.

With regards the pay cuts to PS workers, it doesn't really change things. If average PS worker had a 6% pay cut and no pay increment (yeah right), and if we also assume no private sector worker had a pay cut then average PS pay comes down to €904 compared to the €631 for private sector. Still makes it 43% more.

If the pension levy doesnt count then we must factor in the state pension into the private sector earnings, as the state pension is incorporated into a public service pension.

OMD

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You didnt give facts you gave average numbers across one sector of over 300k and the other figure for a collective of workers called the private sector. Where exactly are the facts?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What was the average wage of a solicitor during the boom?
Or to use examples form this thread a bricklayer?

You have done nothing to show that the public sector earned more than the private sector except on averages.

Because the post of IrishBobs that yoy had a problem with said :


"on average , those who work in the public sector made more money during ( and after ) the boom than those who work in the private sector"

Stop asking others for figures Robbie. Just show us the figures to disprove what I am saying. You ask others to show figures to back up their statements. Where are your figures or links?

erictheviking1

OMD wrote: »

Because the post of IrishBobs that yoy had a problem with said :


"on average , those who work in the public sector made more money during ( and after ) the boom than those who work in the private sector"

Stop asking others for figures Robbie. Just show us the figures to disprove what I am saying. You ask others to show figures to back up their statements. Where are your figures or links?

I posted this in another thread, but I think it applies here also:

"Here we go again. Comparing engineers to burger flippers! I have absolutely no doubt that semi state workers are well paid. However, I would like to see a direct comparision.
i.e. ESB engineer v private sector engineer or ESB electrician v self employed C45 electrician.
I would imagine the semi state companies have a very high proportion of professionals and tradesmen employed there.
The CSO figures have a very low proportion of tradesmen/professionals and a very high proportion of unqualified general operatives.
Those famous CSO "facts" don't include salaries for the self employed who are mainly professionals/tradesmen.
Of course there are no salary surveys for this section of society
But then again a like for like comparision would make sense so its not gonna happen on here
So carry on fooling yourselves comparing Doctors to Toilet Cleaners.
Its no wonder the country is in the ****ter! "

RobbieTheRobber

OMD wrote: »

Because the post of IrishBobs that yoy had a problem with said :


"on average , those who work in the public sector made more money during ( and after ) the boom than those who work in the private sector"

Stop asking others for figures Robbie. Just show us the figures to disprove what I am saying. You ask others to show figures to back up their statements. Where are your figures or links?

Why do i need too disprove a stupid statement?

Are you suggesting that a doctor or nurse should earn less than the avergae wage?

OMD

erictheviking1 wrote: »

I posted this in another thread, but I think it applies here also:

"Here we go again. Comparing engineers to burger flippers! I have absolutely no doubt that semi state workers are well paid. However, I would like to see a direct comparision.
i.e. ESB engineer v private sector engineer or ESB electrician v self employed C45 electrician.
I would imagine the semi state companies have a very high proportion of professionals and tradesmen employed there.
The CSO figures have a very low proportion of tradesmen/professionals and a very high proportion of unqualified general operatives.
Those famous CSO "facts" don't include salaries for the self employed who are mainly professionals/tradesmen.
Of course there are no salary surveys for this section of society
But then again a like for like comparision would make sense so its not gonna happen on here
So carry on fooling yourselves comparing Doctors to Toilet Cleaners.
Its no wonder the country is in the ****ter! "

As I said I have no problem with people disagreeing with my figures (even though we were talking about averages?). But please back up your point with figures. The link I gave previously also showed how PS pay rose much faster than private sector in the same period, but hey, prove me wrong.

erictheviking1

OMD wrote: »

As I said I have no problem with people disagreeing with my figures (even though we were talking about averages?). But please back up your point with figures. The link I gave previously also showed how PS pay rose much faster than private sector in the same period, but hey, prove me wrong.

OK.

http://members.engineersireland.ie/resource/collection/389139AE-5743-4CA4-9E32-D32D2BBED308/Engineers_Ireland_Salary_Survey_2008.pdf
No averages either, all specific job titles etc.

th3 s1aught3r

So should the unions show leadership and tell their members its pay cuts or job losses. Ballot the members, they are good at this in times of plenty, now its the other side of the coin. Lets see the unions bosses earn those six figure salaries ?

erictheviking1

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

So should the unions show leadership and tell their members its pay cuts or job losses. Ballot the members, they are good at this in times of plenty, now its the other side of the coin. Lets see the unions bosses earn those six figure salaries ?

Union leaders are as out of touch as any TD. I think you will find most union members know this already.
That said, workers need representation to protect them from the "lets not waste a good recession" mentality of tightass employers.
As for earning their salaries......:D
When did someone on that kinda money ever EARN it?

RobbieTheRobber

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

So should the unions show leadership and tell their members its pay cuts or job losses. Ballot the members, they are good at this in times of plenty, now its the other side of the coin. Lets see the unions bosses earn those six figure salaries ?

Well lets see, no they shouldnt!

Until such time as their employer makes that decision i dont think the unions would be correct in telling their members somethign which wasnt true!

OMD

erictheviking1 wrote: »

OK.

http://members.engineersireland.ie/resource/collection/389139AE-5743-4CA4-9E32-D32D2BBED308/Engineers_Ireland_Salary_Survey_2008.pdf[/URL

No averages either, all specific job titles etc.

Your link won't open but it looks to refer to engineers. How does that relate to average wages as we were discussing?

erictheviking1

OMD wrote: »

Your link won't open but it looks to refer to engineers. How does that relate to average wages as we were discussing?

FIXED!
It shows that engineers salaries rose significantly in the 'boom years'

OMD

erictheviking1 wrote: »

FIXED!
It shows that engineers salaries rose significantly in the 'boom years'

Thanks. It is difficult to look through the figures but it looks as though those working in the Public sector had pay increases of 15% which is more than most other sectors. Perhaps you could point out the actual figures that show private sector doing better than public (even if we only take one group that is not represantative of workers in general)

Other examples I can give off the top of my head, doctors, nurses, teachers all earn less in private sector than public (not counting private schools where the tax payer still pays the salary). How many gardai or prison officers leave and move to a higher paying job?

dissed doc

OMD wrote: »

Other examples I can give off the top of my head, doctors, nurses, teachers all earn less in private sector than public (not counting private schools where the tax payer still pays the salary). How many gardai or prison officers leave and move to a higher paying job?

That's is just not true. The salaries for doctors in private hospitals is multiples of what the state salary is! I can't comment on nurses or teachers but I imagine teachers in private schools get supplementary income streams from grinds on top of salaries not exposed to public sector levies.

OMD

dissed doc wrote: »

That's is just not true. The salaries for doctors in private hospitals is multiples of what the state salary is! I can't comment on nurses or teachers but I imagine teachers in private schools get supplementary income streams from grinds on top of salaries not exposed to public sector levies.

As I keep on saying back it up. I know for certain that private sector doctors earn less than public but hey knock youself out looking for the figures. That is not to say many doctors do not earn massive amounts from private sector. I am saying the average doctor earns less than Public sector even after pay cuts.

erictheviking1

OMD wrote: »

Thanks. It is difficult to look through the figures but it looks as though those working in the Public sector had pay increases of 15% which is more than most other sectors. Perhaps you could point out the actual figures that show private sector doing better than public (even if we only take one group that is not represantative of workers in general)

Other examples I can give off the top of my head, doctors, nurses, teachers all earn less in private sector than public (not counting private schools where the tax payer still pays the salary). How many gardai or prison officers leave and move to a higher paying job?

Are you serious?
Doctors, nurses, etc earn less in the private sector? Would that be why most irish doctors feck off elsewhere? Would that be why nurses are better off going abroad or working through agencies? IIRC we had to 'import' nurses from the phillipines a few years back.
PS I gave you a link showing pay increases over a 3 year period for engineers.
(Pause while I shake my head with palm on front of my face)

erictheviking1

OMD wrote: »

As I keep on saying back it up. I know for certain that private sector doctors earn less than public but hey knock youself out looking for the figures. That is not to say many doctors do not earn massive amounts from private sector. I am saying the average doctor earns less than Public sector even after pay cuts.

I would imagine a private sector Doctor would be so in demand he/she would NEVER have to take a pay cut. The same goes for any profession where there would be a shortage of talent. Personally, I've better things to do than look to disprove that ridiculous statement. I've found that explaining a point on here can be like talking to a wall.

OMD

erictheviking1 wrote: »

I would imagine a private sector Doctor would be so in demand he/she would NEVER have to take a pay cut. The same goes for any profession where there would be a shortage of talent. Personally, I've better things to do than look to disprove that ridiculous statement. I've found that explaining a point on here can be like talking to a wall.

You would imagine wrong then. Average public hospital consultant earns 200k a year (when you include allowances etc) Average consultant working in private sector earns about 100k gross. Yes some earn a lot more than this but most earn less.

You are now one of 4 PS workers disagreeing with what I am saying, none of you has given anything other than personal opinion about why I am wrong. Please back up your points.

Your previous link showed how public and private engineer wages increased between 2005 and 2008 so what? Public pay increased more than or at least as much as private. How does that proove anything?

ShowMeTheCash

erictheviking1 wrote: »

Are you serious?
Doctors, nurses, etc earn less in the private sector? Would that be why most irish doctors feck off elsewhere? Would that be why nurses are better off going abroad or working through agencies? IIRC we had to 'import' nurses from the phillipines a few years back.
PS I gave you a link showing pay increases over a 3 year period for engineers.
(Pause while I shake my head with palm on front of my face)

Eric, Irish doctors nurses and teachers in the public sector are amoung the best paid in Europe.

"Irish doctors and specialists are paid twice as much as their counterparts in Germany, Irish nurses are the 4th highest paid in the OECD. Our politicians are among he highest paid on the planet. Teachers are paid 15% more than the average in the OECD."

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/irish-public-sector-workers-among-worlds-highest-earners-50628.html


So I think you are talking nonsense!

ShowMeTheCash

erictheviking1 wrote: »

I would imagine a private sector Doctor would be so in demand he/she would NEVER have to take a pay cut. The same goes for any profession where there would be a shortage of talent. Personally, I've better things to do than look to disprove that ridiculous statement. I've found that explaining a point on here can be like talking to a wall.

Recently

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/academic-calls-for-martial-law-on-public-sector-pay-493974.html

Private sector heathcare only makes up 20% of the healthcare in the state.

You want a bench mark compare to countries in europe that are not in the sh1t!

angelfire9

My GP charges €50 a visit and most visits last 5 minutes
10 years ago when I was pregnant with my daughter GP visits were €35
That is a €15 increase or a 43% increase on 2001 figures

ardmacha

Eric, Irish doctors nurses and teachers in the public sector are among the best paid in Europe.

Everyone in Ireland is among the best paid in Europe.

Teachers are paid 15% more than the average in the OECD.

So are class sizes more than the average in the OECD, which is why spending per student is less than average.

th3 s1aught3r

Its pointless to pretend that PS pay will not be cut. Its just a question of by how much imo

Gambl

I was putting together some numbers for some totally unrelated research.

You should never, ever cross that over into a different field, just because it's convenient and it fits and you like the results but.......,.
I've been working on a quantum for asset overvaluation based on artificially reduced interest rates - if you assume that average interest rates from 74-92 were 'normal' (actually this was a period of structurally higher rates so perhaps apply a discount of say 20% to Irish average rates of ~12.5%, then you end up with a cyclically adjusted Irish funding cost of around 10%). At the 2006 low, Irish rates were some 65% lower or around 1/3 of the cyclically adjusted level.
Any asset or yield that contains a Beta of 1 to this (e.g. property prices) would therefore have been overvalued by around 1/3 when the delayed impact of this were factored into the market (in this case 07/08). Commercial property, residential property, stocks might in general be seen as being 3 X overvalued at this point (i.e. a property valued at Eur 300,000 was probably intrinsically worth Eur 100,000). All of this makes some fairly sweeping assumptions:

Irish interest rates in the 74-92 period only require a 20% adjustment for the cyclical high
The Euro effect is responsible for a 2/3 reduction in appropriate risk pricing
This reduction is the only contributor to overvlauations in the period to the 2007-8 peaks
Rates will return exactly to neutral levels
Beta of overvaluation wil unwind in a constant manner.

None of these would quite stand up to such exact simplification. But they may be reasonable approximations.
If they are
and if the Beta of public service pay overvaluation is anything like 1, then, relative to 1992 pay levels, Public Service Pay may have over inflated by a factor of 2/3......

I'm not claiming that this methodology is suitable here but it's convenient and it fits and I like the results

angelfire9

Gambl wrote: »

I was putting together some numbers for some totally unrelated research.

You should never, ever cross that over into a different field, just because it's convenient and it fits and you like the results but.......,.
I've been working on a quantum for asset overvaluation based on artificially reduced interest rates - if you assume that average interest rates from 74-92 were 'normal' (actually this was a period of structurally higher rates so perhaps apply a discount of say 20% to Irish average rates of ~12.5%, then you end up with a cyclically adjusted Irish funding cost of around 10%). At the 2006 low, Irish rates were some 65% lower or around 1/3 of the cyclically adjusted level.
Any asset or yield that contains a Beta of 1 to this (e.g. property prices) would therefore have been overvalued by around 1/3 when the delayed impact of this were factored into the market (in this case 07/08). Commercial property, residential property, stocks might in general be seen as being 3 X overvalued at this point (i.e. a property valued at Eur 300,000 was probably intrinsically worth Eur 100,000). All of this makes some fairly sweeping assumptions:

Irish interest rates in the 74-92 period only require a 20% adjustment for the cyclical high
The Euro effect is responsible for a 2/3 reduction in appropriate risk pricing
This reduction is the only contributor to overvlauations in the period to the 2007-8 peaks
Rates will return exactly to neutral levels
Beta of overvaluation wil unwind in a constant manner.

None of these would quite stand up to such exact simplification. But they may be reasonable approximations.
If they are
and if the Beta of public service pay overvaluation is anything like 1, then, relative to 1992 pay levels, Public Service Pay may have over inflated by a factor of 2/3......

I'm not claiming that this methodology is suitable here but it's convenient and it fits and I like the results

And in English that means what?