Public Sector 'Reform' Report due out today

thebman

ardmacha wrote: »

Increments are recognition of experience, not a reward for top performers.
In pretty much every career people get more salary after a few years than when they enter. The concept of paying people in the PS the same salary for their entire career does not make sense.

Recognition of experience is rewarded by promotions. If you don't warrant a promotion, you should not be paid more for sitting still and doing the same job but for more reward.

That is just crazy talk TBH.

Icepick

ardmacha wrote: »

Increments are recognition of experience

So every single PS worker becomes more experienced and productive?
:pac:

twowheelsonly

Icepick wrote: »

So every single PS worker becomes more experienced and productive?
:pac:

Ya, same as every Private Sector worker does. :rolleyes:

Actually experience does potentially lead to more productivity in most cases, be it manual/physical work or office work.

The other option of course is to start a worker on xxx Euros a year and they can retire 30/40 years later on the same wage that they started with.

thebman

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Ya, same as every Private Sector worker does. :rolleyes:

Actually experience does potentially lead to more productivity in most cases, be it manual/physical work or office work.

The other option of course is to start a worker on xxx Euros a year and they can retire 30/40 years later on the same wage that they started with.

Well the other option is to give them more responsibilities when you give them a pay increase which is actually what happens in the private sector.

I don't know anybody who got paid more to do the same job unless they moved to another company where there skills were needed more or considered more important (i.e. more responsibility as well).

Very rarely do people get pay increases for just doing the same job day in and day out. In fact, people shouldn't be let do the same job for more than about 4-5 years as they will inevitably have started to lose motivation and enjoyment out of doing the same thing everyday and likely to be less productive than someone with 2-3 years experience doing the same job.

bobbysands81

thebman wrote: »

Well the other option is to give them more responsibilities when you give them a pay increase which is actually what happens in the private sector.

I don't know anybody who got paid more to do the same job unless they moved to another company where there skills were needed more or considered more important (i.e. more responsibility as well).

Increments are very much a part of private sector working as well mate.

thebman wrote: »

Very rarely do people get pay increases for just doing the same job day in and day out. In fact, people shouldn't be let do the same job for more than about 4-5 years as they will inevitably have started to lose motivation and enjoyment out of doing the same thing everyday and likely to be less productive than someone with 2-3 years experience doing the same job.

Maybe you should read up on the mobility policy within the Civil Service.

MysticalRain

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Increments are very much a part of private sector working as well mate.

You obviously haven't spent much time working in the private sector if you believe that.

twowheelsonly

MysticalRain wrote: »

You obviously haven't spent much time working in the private sector if you believe that.

I spent 20 years in the private sector (2 different jobs) before I joined the Public sector 12 years ago.
Between those two jobs I estimate that I got at least 12 pay rises, possibly more, over the 20 years - Private Sector doesn't really classify them as Increments but it's to all intents and purposes it's the same thing.

Very comparable IMO.

Despite what anybody says you DO pay for experience in all walks of life.
Does a secretary on her first day in the job get paid the same as the one that's been in the company for 10 years?
Likewise any painter, plumber, carpenter, mechanic, shop assistant, engineer, barman or, dare I say it, Bank Clerk!!

thebman

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I spent 20 years in the private sector (2 different jobs) before I joined the Public sector 12 years ago.
Between those two jobs I estimate that I got at least 12 pay rises, possibly more, over the 20 years - Private Sector doesn't really classify them as Increments but it's to all intents and purposes it's the same thing.

Very comparable IMO.

Despite what anybody says you DO pay for experience in all walks of life.
Does a secretary on her first day in the job get paid the same as the one that's been in the company for 10 years?
Likewise any painter, plumber, carpenter, mechanic, shop assistant, engineer, barman or, dare I say it, Bank Clerk!!

It is a misunderstanding that private sector wages go up based on years of service, this simply is not the case.

It is based on increases in skills and responsibilities which are assessed annually usually. I would like to see a private company that offers pay increases for doing the same job but having been doing it for an extra year that isn't in decline because I doubt there is such an example and if there is then that industry is ripe to be taken by a competitor that does not do this TBH as it is a needless extra cost that isn't necessary to give pay increases to staff in exchange for no increase in productivity or assessment to ensure that there is an increase in productivity.

It should never be automatic nor should it be based on years of service.

Dodge

MysticalRain wrote: »

You obviously haven't spent much time working in the private sector if you believe that.

Its very much part of working for any large scale organisation.

MysticalRain

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I spent 20 years in the private sector (2 different jobs) before I joined the Public sector 12 years ago.
Between those two jobs I estimate that I got at least 12 pay rises, possibly more, over the 20 years - Private Sector doesn't really classify them as Increments but it's to all intents and purposes it's the same thing.

Very comparable IMO.

Despite what anybody says you DO pay for experience in all walks of life.

I think you're confusing the idea of a worker obtaining a payrise for taking on additional roles and responsibilities Vs getting an automatic increase just for doing the exact same job that they've always done. I know of no private sector company that operates in such a fashion, and is still in business. Workers may receive a bonus if they perform particularly well in a given year, but that is a temporary measure and subject to prevailing market conditions.

Does a secretary on her first day in the job get paid the same as the one that's been in the company for 10 years?

Not if it is the same experience repeated 10 times over. To be honest, I think if someone hasn't progressed their career beyond basic some office skills and answering telephones, they are probably not doing anything different in their job to what they were doing in 5-6 years previously, and certainly don't deserve an automatic raise just for continuing to show up to work every day.

Likewise any painter, plumber, carpenter, mechanic, shop assistant, engineer, barman or, dare I say it, Bank Clerk!!

Those are not great examples considering the fact that most of those professions have experienced mass unemployment in recent years, never mind automatic increments.

Cuddlesworth

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Increments are very much a part of private sector working as well mate.

No, they are not.

Silvio.Dante

Kee pyour grubby hands off my well earned increments thank you very much...

Boskowski

Of course there is increments in the private sector. I'm working in the private sector all my working life which is 16 years and in that time I've been working for 6 different companies and they all had increments at least to the tune of the inflation rate.

thebman

Boskowski wrote: »

Of course there is increments in the private sector. I'm working in the private sector all my working life which is 16 years and in that time I've been working for 6 different companies and they all had increments at least to the tune of the inflation rate.

What industry is that then?

markpb

Boskowski wrote: »

Of course there is increments in the private sector. I'm working in the private sector all my working life which is 16 years and in that time I've been working for 6 different companies and they all had increments at least to the tune of the inflation rate.

I got semi-automatic pay rises in IT (soft. dev) for several years but they've well and truly stopped in the last few years. The difference between this and increments is that mine weren't contractual and were dependant on a) me doing my job well and b) the company doing well. Now that my company isn't doing so well, I don't get payrises.

deise blue

Boskowski wrote: »

Of course there is increments in the private sector. I'm working in the private sector all my working life which is 16 years and in that time I've been working for 6 different companies and they all had increments at least to the tune of the inflation rate.

Totally agree , I spent all my working life in the Private Sector - jobs as diverse as working in a brewery , a flour mills , a furniture factory , a fruit & vegetable growing operation & more recently in the financial sector - all used an incremental system.

bobbysands81

markpb wrote: »

I got semi-automatic pay rises in IT (soft. dev) for several years but they've well and truly stopped in the last few years. The difference between this and increments is that mine weren't contractual and were dependant on a) me doing my job well and b) the company doing well. Now that my company isn't doing so well, I don't get payrises.

This whole "increment" argument is a load of tripe in the first place. Even given the fact that I am still getting increments my take home pay is still down close to 20% in the last couple of years.

For some reason the PS bashers, the right wing fruit the loops and the lieks of the Sunday Independent try and make it look like our wages are going up when the truth is the opposite, they're down, waaaaaaaay down.

Drumpot

bobbysands81 wrote: »

This whole "increment" argument is a load of tripe in the first place. Even given the fact that I am still getting increments my take home pay is still down close to 20% in the last couple of years.

For some reason the PS bashers, the right wing fruit the loops and the lieks of the Sunday Independent try and make it look like our wages are going up when the truth is the opposite, they're down, waaaaaaaay down.

I cant speak for your specific posts, but usually anybody who says there havent been enough cuts in the Public service is branded a PS basher around here. .

Just curious what it takes for you to brand a person a PS basher?

bobbysands81

Drumpot wrote: »

I cant speak for your specific posts, but usually anybody who says there havent been enough cuts in the Public service is branded a PS basher around here. .

Just curious what it takes for you to brand a person a PS basher?

Someone who rehashes the same old lazy arguments (perpetuated by folk with an agenda) without drawing their own conclusions using real evidence. This are often based on tiresome generalisations.

A few examples: -
(i) In general Public Servants are way overpaid.
(ii) In general Public Servants get 'gold plated' pensions and pay shag all for them.
(iii) In general Public Servants are lazy.
(iv) Our Public Service is bloated.

I do not believe that any of the above assertions would stand up to proper scrutiny.

Drumpot

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Someone who rehashes the same old lazy arguments (perpetuated by folk with an agenda) without drawing their own conclusions using real evidence. This are often based on tiresome generalisations.

A few examples: -
(i) In general Public Servants are way overpaid.
(ii) In general Public Servants get 'gold plated' pensions and pay shag all for them.
(iii) In general Public Servants are lazy.
(iv) Our Public Service is bloated.

I do not believe that any of the above assertions would stand up to proper scrutiny.

(i) I would agree that Public servants at the lower end of the scale in general are not overpaid, but there is a strong argument that the further up the ladder within the public service, the larger disproportionate payments are open to scrutiny.

(ii) the Public service pensions are the best pensions available. It is true that they are dependent on service and many public servants do not get the full years service at retirement. This can be due to a number of factors but in some cases public servants declined the option to buy back these years (met one only the other night). That aside, I work in the Pensions industry and have had debates about these Pensions and if you factor in all the variables (contributions v pension, fees, fund return etc) they are easily vastly superior to anything else available to those that do not have access to a defined benefit pension plan. They are the best Pensions available in the industry, its not a myth.

(iii)Agreed. I have never worked in the public service, but there are many many lazy cute F**ks in the private companies that I worked for, particularly ones that get promotions based on their lick arse tactics!

(iv) That is debatable. The definition of bloated is important. I would certainly say that in relation to the public finances , we have more people on the payrole then we can afford. The reason that the Social welfare bill has jumped so much is because people are unemployed, not because the benefits have been increased.

I personally believe that there is plenty of room for our government to cut the costs of our public service (and welfare etc) but because they arent willing to cut proportionatley, it will be those near the lower end of the payscale who will disprotiortiantly end up paying the most.

In the end, it actually doesnt matter what any of us think because when our economy doesnt make the recovery that they are expecting there will be little else left for the government to cut but the public paybill.

Were I a public servant at the lower end of the scale I would be rallying my fellow colleagues to demand that our unions start drawing up proposals for serious cuts at middle and upper level management. I would also be demanding that they make a reform package that will proportionatly hit those at the top. I think we need a revolution of the public service from within because the public service ganging together for the common good is only going to protect those at the top of the public service ladder from real pain and force those at the bottom to fight for the cause at their own expense.

bobbysands81

Drumpot wrote: »

(i) I would agree that Public servants at the lower end of the scale in general are not overpaid, but there is a strong argument that the further up the ladder within the public service, the larger disproportionate payments are open to scrutiny.

Speaking from a Civil Service point of view now... There's about 34,000 Civil Servants in the State and once Kevin Cardiff goes not one of us will be paid more than 200k a year. The people at the very top of the Civil Service, who are responsible for thousands of workers and budgets of billions of euro, could get multiples of their annual salary if they chose to work in the private sector. Imagine how much someone in the private sector would be on if they had a budget of tens of billions and ran an organisation of tens of thousands? To say that our top paid Civil Servants are overpaid is nonsense, they work every single waking second they have.

90% of the Civil Service are on less than 60k, approx 70% are on less than 40k, it's hard to see where all these vastly overpaid staff are.

Drumpot wrote: »

(ii) the Public service pensions are the best pensions available. It is true that they are dependent on service and many public servants do not get the full years service at retirement. This can be due to a number of factors but in some cases public servants declined the option to buy back these years (met one only the other night). That aside, I work in the Pensions industry and have had debates about these Pensions and if you factor in all the variables (contributions v pension, fees, fund return etc) they are easily vastly superior to anything else available to those that do not have access to a defined benefit pension plan. They are the best Pensions available in the industry, its not a myth.

This is a myth.

I pay circa €8/9k per year into my pension. This is a mandatory payment, I have no option but to pay into this pension, none. For that I will get a pension of €14k per year (above the OAP) IF I have my full 40 years service completed.

If I have only 25 years completed by retirement age then I will be paying €8/9k per year to receive an annual pension of approx €4.5k.

The only thing 'guaranteed' about my pension is that it's going to reduce further, apart from that there is no guarantees about it.

My buddy works in pensions and tells me that the PS pension is "way behind a lot of the company paid defined benefit schemes I have seen (in some, the employee pays nothing, in a lot of the bank ones, the employee’s pay 3.5%)".

He did the sums and came up with the following - all open and transparent so feel free to contradict - Using €52,000 as final salary, Mr PS will get a gratuity of €78,000 plus a pension of €14,024 (50% final salary less OAP of €11,976). The cost of providing this is €510,596. To fund a pension of this amount , you would have to contribute €377 per month for 40 years.

Currently I am funding over €500 per month, I had a pay award of 12.5% turned down as a result of how good my pension was and I do not have an employer who contributes 5% of my wages to my fund. So even in the best case scenario as outlined above it's not the all singing all dancing pension it's made out to be.

In saying that those at the very top do get very generous pensions... which I think they fully deserve IF none of them received them before retirement age,

Drumpot wrote: »

(iii)Agreed. I have never worked in the public service, but there are many many lazy cute F**ks in the private companies that I worked for, particularly ones that get promotions based on their lick arse tactics!

Lazy people are everywhere and tend to get away with more in larger organisations. We've lost so many staff in last couple of years that there's hardly any wasters left.

Thankfully the Civil Service is (more or less) a meritocracy. I have a lot of faith that 95% of promotions are done so on merit, there are little discrepancies as well but the 'lick arse' can't get promoted because they're a 'lick arse' or beacuse Daddy was good at rugby.

Drumpot wrote: »

(iv) That is debatable. The definition of bloated is important. I would certainly say that in relation to the public finances , we have more people on the payrole then we can afford. The reason that the Social welfare bill has jumped so much is because people are unemployed, not because the benefits have been increased.

I personally believe that there is plenty of room for our government to cut the costs of our public service (and welfare etc) but because they arent willing to cut proportionatley, it will be those near the lower end of the payscale who will disprotiortiantly end up paying the most.

In the end, it actually doesnt matter what any of us think because when our economy doesnt make the recovery that they are expecting there will be little else left for the government to cut but the public paybill.

Were I a public servant at the lower end of the scale I would be rallying my fellow colleagues to demand that our unions start drawing up proposals for serious cuts at middle and upper level management. I would also be demanding that they make a reform package that will proportionatly hit those at the top. I think we need a revolution of the public service from within because the public service ganging together for the common good is only going to protect those at the top of the public service ladder from real pain and force those at the bottom to fight for the cause at their own expense.

The Government is cutting the pay bill and are committed to another €2.5bn being decimated from it. That is on track, we have done everything asked of us, including accepting two large pay cuts, and my take home pay is down approx 20% in last couple of years.

I get a good wage but I literally have no money left after I pay my bills. If the Govt come after my wages again then I'd be far better off on the Dole.

By European standards our PS is small, at the height of the Celtic Tiger both the OECD and the ESRI (noted for it's right wing) gave glowing reviews of our Civil Service saying we "did more with less" when compared to our European neighbours. We now probably have circa 10% less staff, hard to see where we're carrying with this bloatedness.

I agree our costs have to come down, thankfully we're part of a process driving them down. However, we are still a "low tax" economy, changes need to be made across all sectors, we've more than done or bit - it's time for others to do theirs.

Remember when I take a pay cut I am handing money back to the Government to be redistributed to where it's needed most in society.

When a private sector worker takes a pay cut that money goes back into his bosses pocket and the irony is that that worker actually pays less tax as a result.

Drumpot

Bobby, I dont know how to multiquote so excuse the response layout!

1. A HUGE differance between people in the Private sector and public sector, particularly people who are managing "hundreds or thousands" of workers is that in the private sector the managers will usually be held accountable and pay for their mistakes. Not just that, promotions in private sector, particularly at higher levels are based on competency/experience/education, which is not specifically a requirement with the government run organisations. The pressure of being in upper level management in the private sector is much much greater as the consequences of doing a bad job could potentially mean being made unemployed, as opposed to being moved to an area that you just cant do damage as does happen within the public service. That aside, a private company will reduce its costs to match its income. How many Public servants have lost their job ? There has been voluntary redundancy and natural wastage but no job losses which is quite remarkable considering we are going through the worst financial troubles the state has seen since it was setup.

2. Yeh, Im thinking your friend in the Pensions industry needs to get better educated on how Pensions work and how you calculate out their real value.

A person paying 8/9k into their pension now has not been contributing this since they joined the public service. Not just that, if you are on 50k in the public service now, you would of been on a much lower salary over the 40 years and would of been contributing much less on average over this timescale.

The Public service pension scheme payout 1.5 times final salary and a pension of up to half your salary. This is indexed to the current incumbent in the job even after retirement which no private Pension is.

For a private sector employee to target a Pension of €14,024 (in todays value) for retirement the following are the calculations:

Age: 25
Target Retirement Age: 65 (40 years service)
Salary: €25,000
Target Fund at retirement: €1,008,229
Pension Purchase: €45,747 (€14,024 value after inflation)
Starting Premium: €689.88 per month from day one - 33% of salary
Starting Premium if Indexed: €443.20 21.2% of salary (index is where they increase their premiums every year by 5% automatically which I dont believe happens within the Public service - indexed pension contributions are salary related).
Assumed growth in fund: 6%
Escalation of 3% on Pension

You see, these figures actually assume a regular growth of 6% on the private sectors fund and don’t include any years the fund goes down so they aren’t even close to fairly funding for this amount. These figures also do not include the tax free lump sum of 25% that the person is entitled to (that would take their Pension down to €10,500pa).
If the fund only works out at making 2% per annum, it will only yield a pension of €252,105 at retirement which is only a quarter of what we were funding for. This gives a huge example of where fund performance makes all the differance. In this case, the client has to contribute 4 times what I have quoted just to make up the differance. I have seen many clients at retirement where they have barely the same value as the contributions they put in. That aside, if your friend wants to check my figures, tell them to use adviser plus to work out the calcs. Funnily enough, this €250,000 represents roughly the Pension fund you would have if you contributed for 40 years, after your tax free lump sum. As you can see, you would only be funded for a quarter of what you will actually be entitled to, after inflation is considered.
That aside, if their salary goes up more in their final years of employment the only way they can subsidise this increase in line with their pension is to throw as much as they can into their pension and hope that this, coupled with the fund performance, increases their Pension at retirement. When your pension is indexed link with your salary, there are no other ways a private pension can match it and it’s a gamble either way that’s not guaranteed.

If you want I can try and muster up these figures if a private pension fund gets 0% return over the lifetime? Remember, a private Pension plan has to make over 1% at least on a fund to cover the management costs. If private sector pensions do not take a "gamble" with their investment they will either end up with a much smaller pension at retirement or they will have to contribute ridiculous amounts (that the government puts limits on) as often as they can.

So baring in mind that my figures make an awful lot of assumptions (fund performance/contributions), rely on alot of things going right, and that they still do not include the tax free lump sum given out from the public service pension.

3. Yeh, Im not sure I buy the meritocracy argument on this as I have many friends/clients within the public service that would strongly argue against this statement. I actually have a client who owns a substantially sized private hospital and I can quote how they feel about the managers within the HSE they have dealt with "I wouldnt let some of them answer my home phone, let alone let them run the HSE". Theres no point in us going round in circles on this point as we are both only speaking from what we believe to be the case. Lets just agree to disagree on that one.

4. The recent cuts announced were the moving of deckchairs instead of the radical reform required. Answer me this. . If there is 300,000 people within the public service and the most any one of them can work is 40 years (some less), then on average every year there should be at least 7000 workers retiring. Yet the government has committed to shedding something like 24,000 jobs over the next 3-4 years. How many of them jobs are people retiring and on top of that how much of these will be getting Pensions (therefore reducing the actual net savings we are being advised?). Considering the Vat tax gaff admitted by government (that they didn’t factor in whether or not people will spend less therefore nullifying the forecasted vat returns) I think its fair to say that our government once again is fudging its figures to avoid having to make the radical savings required within the PS (with a labour government in charge of reform, I dont think anybodys surprised, might aswell put an alcohalic in charge of a pub and tell him not to drink the goods!). Also, every quango employee has been redeployed which is a farce. How no job is even getting lost with all the quango employees getting redeployed is just another example of this government moving the deckchairs around our already sunken boat to avoid the tough decisions.

Good loser

Having spent many years working in the public service I consider Drumpot to have a much better handle on real world matters than bobbysands 81.

cyclopath2001

Drumpot wrote: »

For a private sector employee to target a Pension of €14,024 (in todays value) for retirement the following are the calculations:

Private sector workers get the Contributory Old Age Pension on top of their private pension. This is paid from exchequer funds and bears no relation to the amount paid in. For a pensioner with an adult dependent, this can be as much as 400 a week. Can you cost this?

Drumpot

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Private sector workers get the Contributory Old Age Pension on top of their private pension. This is paid from exchequer funds and bears no relation to the amount paid in. For a pensioner with an adult dependent, this can be as much as 400 a week. Can you cost this?

I worked off bobbysands example with public servants getting 14k on top of state pension. .

My figures used a basic pension calculator to see what it would cost for a person in the private sector to fund for a comparative €14,024 on top of the state Pension. In 40 years time, the quote calculated that €45747 a year is what you will need to match the current value of €14,024.

mistermouse

[/QUOTE]
Were I a public servant at the lower end of the scale I would be rallying my fellow colleagues to demand that our unions start drawing up proposals for serious cuts at middle and upper level management. I would also be demanding that they make a reform package that will proportionatly hit those at the top. I think we need a revolution of the public service from within because the public service ganging together for the common good is only going to protect those at the top of the public service ladder from real pain and force those at the bottom to fight for the cause at their own expense.[/QUOTE]

That is exactly what should be going on, so many I know in the Public Sector can point out waste etc, but seem to be tied to the union argument of no surrender rather than getting those who bring down their sector out and fixing the problem. You can be sure a solution will be found and they'd be better to be part of it rather than suffering for others above them

cyclopath2001

Drumpot wrote: »

.My figures used a basic pension calculator to see what it would cost for a person in the private sector to fund for a comparative €14,024 on top of the state Pension. In 40 years time, the quote calculated that €45747 a year is what you will need to match the current value of €14,024.

So, a private-sector pensioner with an adult dependent, receiving a Contributory OAP of €20,000 would need to put by how much?

Where should these pension funds be invested, a special fund, ring-fenced by the government, so it can't be used for anything else, maybe called The National Pension Reserve Fund, or something like that?

BrianD3

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

So, a private-sector pensioner with an adult dependent, receiving a Contributory OAP of €20,000 would need to put by how much?

Where should these pension funds be invested, a special fund, ring-fenced by the government, so it can't be used for anything else, maybe called The National Pension Reserve Fund, or something like that?

The private sector apologists always gloss over the fact that private sector workers get the contributory old age pension.

The COAP is
-currently 11.9k (or 20k with an adult dependent as you say)
-defined benefit
-guaranteed
-index linked
-pay-as-you-go by the state
-requires 10 year of PRSI contributions compared to most PS pensions which are a 40 year commitment

Yet strangely, this 11.9k pension never gets described as "gold plated" or gets "costed". In fact it often gets described as "no pension".

There has been so much focus on the pensions of 300k public servants and very little focus on the 1 million plus private sector workers that will be eligible for this COAP.

I see Jill Kerby having a go at PS pensions yet again in today's Sunday Times. Apparently the average private sector worker is lucky to get a pension 1/10 of his final salary and needs the COAP to make ends meet. Actually Jill, most public servants also need the COAP to make ends meet as the COAP makes up a large proportion of their pension.

Also, no mention of how much the "average" private sector worker is paying into a pension fund get this 1/10th of final salary pension. If the "average" private setor worker starts paying a modest contribution at say, age 35, whose fault is it that he then gets a poor pension. Should a public servant who starts paying into his (compulsory) pension at age 22 be hit in his pocket as a result?

bobbysands81

Drumpot wrote: »

I worked off bobbysands example with public servants getting 14k on top of state pension. .

My figures used a basic pension calculator to see what it would cost for a person in the private sector to fund for a comparative €14,024 on top of the state Pension. In 40 years time, the quote calculated that €45747 a year is what you will need to match the current value of €14,024.

Drumpot - it's quite simple really...

According to this http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Pensions_Calculators/ and this http://www.irishlife.ie/advice/pension-calculator.html my BEST case secenario still leaves me less of a pension than I could expect if I was paying into a private one.

bobbysands81

BrianD3 wrote: »

The private sector apologists always gloss over the fact that private sector workers get the contributory old age pension.

The COAP is
-currently 11.9k (or 20k with an adult dependent as you say)
-defined benefit
-guaranteed
-index linked
-pay-as-you-go by the state
-requires 10 year of PRSI contributions compared to most PS pensions which are a 40 year commitment

Yet strangely, this 11.9k pension never gets described as "gold plated" or gets "costed". In fact it often gets described as "no pension".There has been so much focus on the pensions of 300k public servants and very little focus on the 1 million plus private sector workers that will be eligible for this COAP.

I see Jill Kerby having a go at PS pensions yet again in today's Sunday Times. Apparently the average private sector worker is lucky to get a pension 1/10 of his final salary and needs the COAP to make ends meet. Actually Jill, most public servants also need the COAP to make ends meet as the COAP makes up a large proportion of their pension.

Also, no mention of how much the "average" private sector worker is paying into a pension fund get this 1/10th of final salary pension. If the "average" private setor worker starts paying a modest contribution at say, age 35, whose fault is it that he then gets a poor pension. Should a public servant who starts paying into his (compulsory) pension at age 22 be hit in his pocket as a result?

As it was by Eoghan Harris in last week's Sunday Independent.

bobbysands81

Good loser wrote: »

Having spent many years working in the public service I consider Drumpot to have a much better handle on real world matters than bobbysands 81.

Play the ball not the man mo chara, if you've nothing to add why even bother?

doomed

Who are the 3 highest paid groups in the public service?

Possibly

(1) Heads of Semi States
(2) Judges
(3) Hospital Consultants

What do these groups have in common?

Judges and consultants are very highly paid by international standards, even when you (as you must) take into account differences in purchasing power. However they are paid a lot not because they are public servants but because they are lawyers and doctors and in Ireland we consistently overpay those who like to refer to themselves as "the professions".

As for heads of semi states I suspect they just look around at the earnings of people running private companies that they dont own and price themselves accordingly. We pay senior managers a lot of money because they tell us they are worth it.

My point is that the public and private sectors are a lot more alike than people are willing to admit. Both have good people and dossers and in both if your incompetence is only discovered when you are senior you will do OK. If you are a public servant we will find you another job. If you are in the private sector we'll give you a seriously large payoff and announce that you "are leaving to pursue other business opportunities".

cyclopath2001

Other important facts in looking at the cost of funding private sector pensions would be the under performance of the investments that were supposed to guarantee those pensions (dodgy property bets perhaps?) and the large fees taken out of those pension contributions by the under-performing pension fund managers.

Good loser

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Play the ball not the man mo chara, if you've nothing to add why even bother?

You're wrong and he's right.

I wonder if PS pensions were made optional would many (sane) public servants opt out?

bobbysands81

Good loser wrote: »

You're wrong and he's right.

But sure he doesn't even offer a point of view.

Good loser wrote: »

I wonder if PS pensions were made optional would many (sane) public servants opt out?

Of course they would.

For instance a Clerical Officer has to be working circa 25 years, making huge mandatory payments into their pension fund, before they get a cent above and beyond the OAP. Over 50% of staff in Civil Service are at this grade. All are paid below 40k per annum so even a CO with 40 years contributions is going to be getting a pension of less than 8k (on top of OAP). It makes no sense that they not "opt out" if there was an opt out.

That there is not an "opt out" is telling don't you think?

What about all the part-time, job sharers, people who joined the Civil Service later in their careers etc... it's hardly worth their while paying into a fund that they're going to get shag all back from is it? The State takes in far more money from these pensions than it pays out so no "opt out" is going to come into play any time soon.

Meanwhile for these people the "gold plated pension" myth illusion continues to persist.