Public Service bashing sticks at the ready, call to "benchmark pay again"

davet82

doomed wrote: »

How do you benchmark a Garda against the private sector? A judge? A teacher? A social worker?

easy peasy...

Garda = security guard (sure thats all the guards are, they're just paid more)

Judge = Travel agent (lets face it they're just arranging accomadation for some people for a few years away)

Teacher = Creche worker (they just mind the kids while we go to work)

Social Worker = Barman (most people go to a barman with their problems so makes sense to pay them the same)

phd here we come :P;):confused::pac:

flanders1979

Bertie Ahern is sitting on a beach somewhere laughing at ye all blaming each other for HIS mistakes. He should be boiled in oil rendered from Mary Harney.

MysticalRain

Einhard wrote: »

If Harry next door was a better candidate I'd have no problem with him receiving an extra 10%. However, that's not the case. I could be an infinitely better teacher than Harry and yet would be on better terms and conditions purely based on the fact that I was born a year after him. That's not fair. I'm not arguing that it should be reversed though. I've accepted it. It's the way things are and I'll just get on with it. I take issue though with the notion that you're pushing, that somehow it's fair and equitable, and somehow part and parcel of life outside the public service. Because, some specific instances aside, that's pure bogus and you know it.

Incidentally, I've worked in the private sector before I decided to become a teacher. Never was I in a position whereby I earned less than someone else purely based on the a difference of 12 months in the dates we joined.

I really don't understand the sense of entitlement here. When I graduated from an IT course 10 years ago, it was in the middle of the dotcom recession, and I had to accept radically different pay and conditions compared with someone who graduated a year or two earlier with the exact same skillset.

Another generation of graduates in areas like law and construction are going through a similar situation right now (assuming they even get jobs). Nobody said life was fair. That's just how things pan out when you have the dumb luck to finish college in the middle of a severe recession.

Einhard

MysticalRain wrote: »

I really don't understand the sense of entitlement here. When I graduated from an IT course 10 years ago, it was in the middle of the dotcom recession, and I had to accept radically different pay and conditions compared with someone who graduated a year or two earlier with the exact same skillset.

I really don't see a sense of entitlement. I don't think it's fair that people with the exact same job, in the exact same organisation should get paid less or more based entirely on when they happened to be born.

I think it's unfair that you were in that position too, although I imagine it was somewhat different. Were you working with that person in the same company? Were you doing the exact same thing? Was there a chance that eventually the differential would disappear? Were there no promotion prospects or prospects of every being offered a job in another company and thus receiving better pay and conditions?

The last point is important: in most industries, you have the chance of moving about to improve your contract. There is competition. My brother moved job recently because he didn't think he was being paid enough.

In education, the same thing doesn't apply. The government has an almost absolute monopoly. Thus, if I am lower wages but doing a better job than a colleague, there is no way for me to change this. Essentially, I'll be teaching the same subjects, to the same kids, in the same school, and collaborating on the same projects, but he'll get 10% more than me. Every year. For the duration of his career.

I mean, people in the private sector always complain (often rightly) about the outdated, nonsensical practices in the public sector. Yet here we have a situation where there is a permanent pay differential based, not on performance, but rather on date of entry, or date of birth essentially. How can one rail against the system and then defend such practices?

And btw, I'm not complaining about this. I've accepted it, and I can live with it. However, I am pointing out that I have been affected by large cutbacks in the PS, and that IMO, I have been targeted unfairly.

Another generation of graduates in areas like law and construction are going through a similar situation right now (assuming they even get jobs). Nobody said life was fair. That's just how things pan out when you have the dumb luck to finish college in the middle of a severe recession.

This isn't true. I have friends who have positions in the private sector, and they are not on different wages on people doing the exact same job. Granted, there are specific instances where it does happen in the private sector, but I think that's equaly unfair.

MysticalRain

Einhard wrote: »

I really don't see a sense of entitlement. I don't think it's fair that people with the exact same job, in the exact same organisation should get paid less or more based entirely on when they happened to be born.

Well no sh1t! Imagine how bad your situation would be if you had graduated in 1950's Ireland. Assuming you even had the opportunity to get a college education, which many in that era didn't. Some generations have it lucky, others don't. Both my parents are in the PS. Well, aside from my old man who just retired this February....how's that for good timing? Both of them had the good fortune to be working in the PS when benchmarking kicked into full swing. No one in the younger generation will have it so lucky as that generation did.

And, yes...like for like, there were people I worked with doing the exact same jobs for more money, and some of them had even less qualifications than I had. That's just how it is in the private sector.

Yes, the government has a monopoly on teaching jobs. But you also have to remember that PS workers are more protected compared with private sector workers. So you have to take the good with the bad.

This isn't true. I have friends who have positions in the private sector, and they are not on different wages on people doing the exact same job. Granted, there are specific instances where it does happen in the private sector, but I think that's equaly unfair.

Well I call BS. I know loads of people in the private sector are on different wages for the same job. Some people are more than others because of bonuses and pay rises that reflect productivity, and how good they can negotiate with their employer. But for recent college grads, it often depends on timing. Younger grads tend to get screwed disproportionately in a recession compared with older more established workers. That's just how the employment market works.

gerryo777

Rabidlamb wrote: »

All you public service workers have done is give Croke Park a bad name.
It used to be a source of national pride, now mention Croke Park & all you think of is FF looking after their Social Partners on the way out the door.
Roll on 2014, or maybe earlier . . . . who knows.

Its a pity that bertie bowl wasn't built, the unions and the government could have had their little love-in there and called the deal 'the bertie bowl agreement'!:D

Einhard

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well no sh1t! Imagine how bad your situation would be if you had graduated in 1950's Ireland. Assuming you even had the opportunity to get a college education, which many in that era didn't. Some generations have it lucky, others don't. Both my parents are in the PS. Well, aside from my old man who just retired this February....how's that for good timing? Both of them had the good fortune to be working in the PS when benchmarking kicked into full swing. No one in the younger generation will have it so lucky as that generation did.

Eh, not sure how you missed it, but we're not talking about generational differences here. If i had graduated in 50s Ireland, I would have been in the same boat as everyone else who graduated in 50s Ireland. If I had started in the PS when your dad had started, I would have been treated exactly the same as everyone else in the PS. There would have been a level playing field.

That doesn't apply here. I think people doing the exact same job in the exact same organisation should get the same basic wage, whether that's in the public or private sector. At the moment, that generally happens in the private sector. It most certainly does not happen in the public sector.

And, yes...like for like, there were people I worked with doing the exact same jobs for more money, and some of them had even less qualifications than I had. That's just how it is in the private sector.

No. That's not how it operates in the private sector. Granted, as I stated, it might happen in certain specific instances in the private sector, but in general pay is awarded on merit on the private sector. It boggles the mind that I am being criticised for advocating that wages should be awarded on merit in the public sector, when much of the condemnation of the sector focuses on the lack of such a system.

It is frankly absurd that you were paid less in whatever firm you worked in for doing what might have been a better job than your more highly remunerated colleague. No wonder so many firms crashed in the dot com boom if that were their work practices.

Hey Mystical Rain, you're doing a better job than Frank here, but we're gonna pay him more because he got here a few months before him.

Are you seriously defending such an idiotic system?

Yes, the government has a monopoly on teaching jobs. But you also have to remember that PS workers are more protected compared with private sector workers. So you have to take the good with the bad.

I've no problem with that. I'm not comparing myself with the private sector though, but with colleagues in the public sector. You made an analogy between your position and mine- I was simply pointing out that the comparison isn't valid.

Well I call BS. I know loads of people in the private sector are on different wages for the same job. Some people are more than others because of bonuses and pay rises that reflect productivity, and how good they can negotiate with their employer.

I'm talking about basic pay. I agree with bonuses and productivity pay in the private sector.

But for recent college grads, it often depends on timing. Younger grads tend to get screwed disproportionately in a recession compared with older more established workers. That's just how the employment market works.

I've nothing against people getting paid extra for experience. I've nothing against "older, more experienced" colleagues earning more. The more you work at a job the better you tend to become, and that should be reflected in your earnings.

However, that's not the situation at the moment. When I start in September, I'll earn 10% pa less than someone who started last year. If he takes a year out and I continue on, I'll still get 10% less than him even though we have the exact same experience, the exact same qualifications, the exact same responsibilities teaching the exact same kids in the exact same school. So it's nothing to do with being established or being experienced and all to do with jus having been lucky enough to get in one year earlier, and the government not having the balls to implement a fair pay structure. Nothing you have said has addressed those points.

MysticalRain

Einhard wrote: »

Eh, not sure how you missed it, but we're not talking about generational differences here. If i had graduated in 50s Ireland, I would have been in the same boat as everyone else who graduated in 50s Ireland. If I had started in the PS when your dad had started, I would have been treated exactly the same as everyone else in the PS. There would have been a level playing field.

That's just simply not correct. People in the private sector are generally paid the market rate, and said rate typically drops in a recession. So graduates who finish college in a boom time typically start out on more than graduates who finish during a recession (generally speaking, there are exceptions of course). Most of the current crop of graduates cannot even find jobs, or have had to emigrate to find work, or are being mercilessly exploited by employers expecting them to work for free on the JobBridge scheme.

I am not just spouting off my opinion on a message board here. That's just economics 101.

No. That's not how it operates in the private sector. Granted, as I stated, it might happen in certain specific instances in the private sector, but in general pay is awarded on merit on the private sector. It boggles the mind that I am being criticised for advocating that wages should be awarded on merit in the public sector, when much of the condemnation of the sector focuses on the lack of such a system.

It is frankly absurd that you were paid less in whatever firm you worked in for doing what might have been a better job than your more highly remunerated colleague. No wonder so many firms crashed in the dot com boom if that were their work practices.

Hey Mystical Rain, you're doing a better job than Frank here, but we're gonna pay him more because he got here a few months before him.

Are you seriously defending such an idiotic system?

I am not defending anything. I am just stating what the reality in the in the private sector.

Yes, pay is awarded on merit in the private sector. But that is not the only factor in the equation. Prevailing market conditions factor into it as well. If a company has been negatively effected by a recession, then wages drop. I know exactly what my predecessor was on in my company (I have access the the company HR records, so I know what everybody started on), and it is about 18% more than what I am currently earning. The company will probably go bust before the year is out anyway. So my wages will be 180 euro a week from the government if I don't find a new job before then.

I've no problem with that. I'm not comparing myself with the private sector though, but with colleagues in the public sector. You made an analogy between your position and mine- I was simply pointing out that the comparison isn't valid.

It is a valid comparison to the extent that the public sector is not immune to the current economic conditions like some people in the public sector apparently seem to think it should be.

However, that's not the situation at the moment. When I start in September, I'll earn 10% pa less than someone who started last year. If he takes a year out and I continue on, I'll still get 10% less than him even though we have the exact same experience, the exact same qualifications, the exact same responsibilities teaching the exact same kids in the exact same school. So it's nothing to do with being established or being experienced and all to do with jus having been lucky enough to get in one year earlier, and the government not having the balls to implement a fair pay structure. Nothing you have said has addressed those points.

There is nothing to address. That guy has a different contract to the one you will be signing. Times change, and the new guys like yourself will have to put up with reduced pay and conditions when the new contracts are drawn up.

To expect that you are entitled to be paid a Celtic Tiger era wage, despite graduating in the middle of one of the worst recessions in this nation's history is out of touch with reality. You will be lucky to even get a job in the first place the way the teach profession is at the moment.

Rabidlamb

Einhard wrote: »

Seriously, are you really just going to ignore the serious replies to the issues you raise? Every point you make has been rebutted or answered in some way, and yet you just keep on going like some PS hating duracell bunny. Rabidlamb? rabblerabblelamb more like

Einhard, you were never the focus of my vitriol, you come across as well educated, coherent & someone who will make a fine addition to your profession.
It's those who have added very little but have amassed large salaries based on time served & that get my goat.
The continual payment of increments during this crisis is what grates the most.
I hope that your generation respect the public mood better than the self protectionists who represent you at present.

Gumbo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I'd like to see Merkel in charge of the Irish public sector.
Someone outside of Irish politics with a proper sense of perspective.

he is a scumbag, nothing more, nothing less.

http://www.independent.ie/travel/travel-news/ryanair-boss-michael-oleary-protected-by-police-after-protest-from-sacked-rival-airline-staff-3012732.html

Police had to step in after tempers flared as he left making a victory sign in front of TV cameras in an apparent act of provocation.

Several locals surrounded him, swearing at him and giving him the middle finger as officers intervened.

The Spanair workers, who have led a nine-day lock-in at Bilbao Airport after their firm's demise, held a sit-down protest after Mr O'Leary left for Madrid.

Local union leader Jon Herrera accused him of a lack of respect.

He said: "He has stood in front of a group of workers who have lost their jobs overnight and raised his hand in a symbol of victory.

"He's disqualified himself."

tails_naf

flanders1979 wrote: »

These public jobs were available to almost everyone in the early 2000s. Most people wanted to work in construction or related industries and laughed at the pay available to them in Public Service. Few wanted the secure lowly paid job.
Get over it. This crap is getting old.

This is the attitude that I really don't get -
It's NOT jealousy that is causing people to say the PS is over-paid.
It's pure and and simple - the PS we have cannot be afforded, and large segments of it simply does not work to boot!

So please stop thinking this is just 'sour grapes' and that us in the private sector are only bawling because we didn't get into the PS while the getting was good.

Not all segments of the PS are over-paid, but there are segments that are. There are some parts that have too many employees on middle management salaries that simply provide no real function (in fact, too much layers and bureaucracy is actually a net loss - cutting some people in these roles could lead to an increase in efficiency).

What people want is a rationalization of the PS - not to join it!
People want the fat cut, and the good workers kept. They want the duplicate jobs cut (e.g. merging of the health boards, with no loss of admin/HR staff), In fact know a number of people in the PS who want this too. The PS is bashed because there is undeniable waste and wasters, yet this is defended to the hilt by unions, etc. I think if the waste was well and truly cut, those who actually work and provide a quality service would find people much happier to pay for those services.

So please, stop with the misdirection and false arguments that this is just jealousy.

tails_naf

bobbysands81 wrote: »

2. Given that top Civil Servants have thousands of staff, annual turnover/budgets in the billions, and are responsible for running a country not one of them is paid more than 200k. Someone doing their job in the private sector would be paid multiples of what they're on.

This sounds like a well made point, but you are missing one thing - the absolute and abject failure of many of these departments to manage their staff and money and the top people NOT having to feel any pain or responsibility for this.

FAS - golden handshakes and massive pensions in light of many scandals and misappropriation.

HSE - same thing. vastly overpaid consultants. falling levels of care, and really big salaries for the top man, but delivering no needed change.

PPARS - and oldie but a goodie.

Dept of Education -yep, slipping performance vs our european peers vastly in a few years, despite record levels of funding during the boom years.


The fact that there are no repercussions whether these people perform or not may be a reason they stay in the jobs they have for their '200k' rather than seek a job for multiples of this elsewhere, where they actually have to perform.

bobbysands81

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Einhard, you were never the focus of my vitriol, you come across as well educated, coherent & someone who will make a fine addition to your profession.
It's those who have added very little but have amassed large salaries based on time served & that get my goat.
The continual payment of increments during this crisis is what grates the most.
I hope that your generation respect the public mood better than the self protectionists who represent you at present.

Still waiting on you to counter my arguments mate...

kincsem

Agent J wrote: »

Any proper conversation should at least include some up to date figures

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2011/earnlabcosts_q32011.pdf

Go nuts.

It looks like

Q3 2010 - Q3 2011 Weekly Hours
Private sector 617.45 32.1
Public sector 906.81 31.8

twowheelsonly

Ally Dick wrote: »

Big thick Bertie gave the public sector 20% benchmarking increases in 2003. Big thick Mary O'Rourke gave the ESB 15% wage increases, no questions asked. The two of them should be put into stocks and rotten fruit thrown at them in every village green in Ireland

Nice try but the average was 8.9%

Myself and my colleagues got ourselves a big fat 4%. As far as I can remember this payment was phased in over 18 months. Between direct and indirect cuts this has been well eroded at this stage.

There were those that got a lot more obviously but once again it was the ones at the top of the tree, in the Senior Civil Servant grades, that scored. Why??? Because TDs' wages were linked to the pay of the Senior Civil Service grades so they 'had to' fall into line and accept the pay rise.

Rabidlamb

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Still waiting on you to counter my arguments mate...

Somehow I don't think either of us will ever make a disciple out of the other.
I'm prepared to live with the fact there are people on the internet who may not appreciate my arguments & visa versa.
It's good we're both passionate about our beliefs.

Agent J

kincsem wrote: »

It looks like

Q3 2010 - Q3 2011 Weekly Hours
Private sector 617.45 32.1
Public sector 906.81 31.8

Took someone long enough.
Aside from the obvious i haven't seen anything which explains it.

I am open to suggestions(With figures/data would be nice).

Rabidlamb

Agent J wrote: »

Took someone long enough.
Aside from the obvious i haven't seen anything which explains it.

I am open to suggestions(With figures/data would be nice).

The €50k vs €30k thing has been around for a long time.
These figures just back this up.

I'd guess that more PS jobs require 3rd Level qualifications hence some of the disparity.
The PS figures are skewed with the top heavy long serving members who are at the top of their increments & grades.

kincsem

If you want to figure out some of the pay you can look at Garda allowances here (additional to basic pay.)
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Pay
Click on Garda Pay & Allowances w.e.f 1st Jan 2010

Sweetpea101

Just throwing in my tuppence worth - I don't see why we are as crazy as to attempt to debate the public vs the private sectors - seriously, are private sector shop staff on minimum wage the same as a solicitor on €300k (while also ripping off his clients for millions)???? And are teachers (of which I am one) the same as a top civil servant in the dept of the Taoiseach who needs to be paid €150k because of his wonderful advice?? And are we really lumping those vastly different people into two groups and comparing them??? That's just mad!! And, just to add one little piece of information - I've already said that I'm a teacher - after I've paid my costs of working (childcare and petrol) I come out of my overpaid job with €170 - if I were on the dole of €180 (which was the figure mentioned on this thread) I would be ten euro better off a week, and I would have some extra time with my lovely children. We're crazy to be allowing ourselves to battle the public vs the private because they can't be treated as generally as that.

Sweetpea101

Also, I'm sitting here at 1am on the Thursday night of our midterm break, popping in and out of here as I'm doing schoolwork!!!! A teacher's job is never done!

billybudd

Sweetpea101 wrote: »

Just throwing in my tuppence worth - I don't see why we are as crazy as to attempt to debate the public vs the private sectors - seriously, are private sector shop staff on minimum wage the same as a solicitor on €300k (while also ripping off his clients for millions)???? And are teachers (of which I am one) the same as a top civil servant in the dept of the Taoiseach who needs to be paid €150k because of his wonderful advice?? And are we really lumping those vastly different people into two groups and comparing them??? That's just mad!! And, just to add one little piece of information - I've already said that I'm a teacher - after I've paid my costs of working (childcare and petrol) I come out of my overpaid job with €170 - if I were on the dole of €180 (which was the figure mentioned on this thread) I would be ten euro better off a week, and I would have some extra time with my lovely children. We're crazy to be allowing ourselves to battle the public vs the private because they can't be treated as generally as that.

In total you could live on €188 pw?

No offence but i hope your not a math teacher.

Sweetpea101

billybudd wrote: »

In total you could live on €188 pw?

No offence but i hope your not a math teacher.

My point is that I'm coming out with less than the dole every week, working my backside off, when if I was sitting on my ass collecting the dole I'd have more cash in hand. And I'm saying that, but I wouldn't like to be in that position, I love my job, I work very hard at it, there's a lot of extra work that I do, and I don't mind doing any of it, but I think the public vs private sector debate is madness. Also, I had read €180 earlier in the thread and 180 minus 170 equals 10 - I'm not sure if the €180 was a correct figure, but you're right, I couldnt afford to live off €188 per week, and thankfully my other half also has a job - his job pays the mortgage and most of the bills!

billybudd

Sweetpea101 wrote: »

My point is that I'm coming out with less than the dole every week, working my backside off, when if I was sitting on my ass collecting the dole I'd have more cash in hand. And I'm saying that, but I wouldn't like to be in that position, I love my job, I work very hard at it, there's a lot of extra work that I do, and I don't mind doing any of it, but I think the public vs private sector debate is madness. Also, I had read €180 earlier in the thread and 180 minus 170 equals 10 - I'm not sure if the €180 was a correct figure, but you're right, I couldnt afford to live off €188 per week, and thankfully my other half also has a job - his job pays the mortgage and most of the bills!

I didnt mean to be smart but out of that €188 you have bills, rent, food, energy etc etc, maybe on the dole you would be below the poverty line and not above it, it really depends on what you earn, two sw recipients with two children for example are probaly better off on the dole than working min wage jobs, but if you and your husband togeather for instance earn over €70,000 between you then your better of working.

Sweetpea101

billybudd wrote: »

I didnt mean to be smart but out of that €188 you have bills, rent, food, energy etc etc, maybe on the dole you would be below the poverty line and not above it, it really depends on what you earn, two sw recipients with two children for example are probaly better off on the dole than working min wage jobs, but if you and your husband togeather for instance earn over €70,000 between you then your better of working.

We are, and I'm not trying to be smart either, but just point out that there are so many different jobs in the public sector that they aren't all the same and they definitely aren't all necessary!!! I did some civil service work in the summers when I was in college and it was the easiest money I ever earned in my life - it was disgraceful what I was being paid for - and I said it out loud at the time. I've always worked hard for every penny I've earned - with the exception of those summers - and really, I nearly died. My brother also worked in a government department for a few years, and he left and went into the private sector because he felt that he would rather do a day's work for his money than sit on his backside reading the newspaper all day. I get incredibly frustrated when I hear this debate because there are so many different jobs and such savagely contrasting rates of pay for "public sector workers" - but when you hear what the frontline staff are on, it's not the big salaries we're talking about!

billymitchell

Sweetpea101 wrote: »

We are, and I'm not trying to be smart either, but just point out that there are so many different jobs in the public sector that they aren't all the same and they definitely aren't all necessary!!! I did some civil service work in the summers when I was in college and it was the easiest money I ever earned in my life - it was disgraceful what I was being paid for - and I said it out loud at the time. I've always worked hard for every penny I've earned - with the exception of those summers - and really, I nearly died. My brother also worked in a government department for a few years, and he left and went into the private sector because he felt that he would rather do a day's work for his money than sit on his backside reading the newspaper all day. I get incredibly frustrated when I hear this debate because there are so many different jobs and such savagely contrasting rates of pay for "public sector workers" - but when you hear what the frontline staff are on, it's not the big salaries we're talking about!

when training to be a teacher, did they ever mention paragraphs to you? :pac:

hardbackwriter

Sweetpea101 wrote: »

billybudd wrote: »

I didnt mean to be smart but out of that €188 you have bills, rent, food, energy etc etc, maybe on the dole you would be below the poverty line and not above it, it really depends on what you earn, two sw recipients with two children for example are probaly better off on the dole than working min wage jobs, but if you and your husband togeather for instance earn over €70,000 between you then your better of working.

We are, and I'm not trying to be smart either, but just point out that there are so many different jobs in the public sector that they aren't all the same and they definitely aren't all necessary!!! I did some civil service work in the summers when I was in college and it was the easiest money I ever earned in my life - it was disgraceful what I was being paid for - and I said it out loud at the time. I've always worked hard for every penny I've earned - with the exception of those summers - and really, I nearly died. My brother also worked in a government department for a few years, and he left and went into the private sector because he felt that he would rather do a day's work for his money than sit on his backside reading the newspaper all day. I get incredibly frustrated when I hear this debate because there are so many different jobs and such savagely contrasting rates of pay for "public sector workers" - but when you hear what the frontline staff are on, it's not the big salaries we're talking about!

The so called frontline ( guards + teachers ) are middle income earners in the public sector but compared to the likes of the Uk , both are very well paid


Solicitors salaries were mentioned earlier and a figure of 300k was mentioned , only a fraction of legal professions earn that kind of dough , the average solicitor isn't earning anymore than 50 k per year

woodoo

billybudd wrote: »

In total you could live on €188 pw?

No offence but i hope your not a math teacher.

She has children so she would be getting alot more than 188 pw if she was on welfare.

I have sympathy for the position she is in. She has educated herself and got what should be a well paying job, which should leave her better off than someone who lives of welfare. But that is not the case in this welfare state. She has to pay for a roof over her head, transport to her work and for childcare. And she ends up with abot 170 after that.

Welfare mothers don't need a car, don pay the full cost of the roof over their head and don't pay childcare. I know plenty of them and they are very well dressed and seem to have plenty of money for takeaways and drink.

This is not the way it should be. On average an educated teacher should have significantly more disposable income than someone on welfare. This is where this country has gone so wrong.

woodoo

hardbackwriter wrote: »

The so called frontline ( guards + teachers ) are middle income earners in the public sector but compared to the likes of the Uk , both are very well paid

Work pays in the UK compared to welfare. So there is no use comparing us with the UK

In the UK you wouldn't find welfare dependants with more disposable income than professionals.

srsly78

That's because they only recently (last 6 months?) slashed benefits in the UK. Ireland will probably follow suit as usual.

gerryo777

woodoo wrote: »

She has children so she would be getting alot more than 188 pw if she was on welfare.

I have sympathy for the position she is in. She has educated herself and got what should be a well paying job, which should leave her better off than someone who lives of welfare. But that is not the case in this welfare state. She has to pay for a roof over her head, transport to her work and for childcare. And she ends up with abot 170 after that.

Welfare mothers don't need a car, don pay the full cost of the roof over their head and don't pay childcare. I know plenty of them and they are very well dressed and seem to have plenty of money for takeaways and drink.

This is not the way it should be. On average an educated teacher should have significantly more disposable income than someone on welfare. This is where this country has gone so wrong.

It's the 'welfare mothers' now is it?

What if the poster you refer to loses her job due to the cutbacks in the education system and can't get another job?

Will that make her a 'welfare mother'?

Will she then not need her car, not pay the full cost of the roof over her head and get everything handed to her like you think?

Stop generalising people, it adds nothing to the argument!

hardbackwriter

woodoo wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

The so called frontline ( guards + teachers ) are middle income earners in the public sector but compared to the likes of the Uk , both are very well paid

Work pays in the UK compared to welfare. So there is no use comparing us with the UK

In the UK you wouldn't find welfare dependants with more disposable income than professionals.

A wellfare dependant could have more disposable income than a surgeon if the doc had a 5k per week cocaine habit , If a guard has less money at the end of the week than someone on the dole, they need to budget better

Freddie59

hardbackwriter wrote: »

A wellfare dependant could have more disposable income than a surgeon if the doc had a 5k per week cocaine habit , If a guard has less money at the end of the week than someone on the dole, they need to budget better

The reality is that, in a lot of cases, the dole is a better alternative to working. And that cannot be right. Watching 'midweek' on TV3 on Wednesday night was an eye opener.

EPA spend €5k on yo-yos (yes - yo-yos); James O'Reilly spent €640 on two coffee machines for his office, some TD claimed €53k in unvouched expenses last year; the list was endless.

Eddie Dobbs (you either love him or hate him) pointed out the obvious. Country bankrupt; borrowing €400m a week; and this shyte is still going on.

It is inevitable that some Monday morning the ones loaning it to us will refuse, and then the sh!t will fly.

Einhard

gerryo777 wrote: »

Stop generalising people, it adds nothing to the argument!

It's a thread in which sweeping generalisations abput the public sector are routinely made, and you think woodoo should stop generalising?!

woodoo

hardbackwriter wrote: »

A wellfare dependant could have more disposable income than a surgeon if the doc had a 5k per week cocaine habit , If a guard has less money at the end of the week than someone on the dole, they need to budget better

We are not talking about leisure activities we are talking basics like roof over head, travel costs to work and childcare.

gerryo777

2 questions there for you woodoo.
Do you want to answer them?

Agent J

Rabidlamb wrote: »

The €50k vs €30k thing has been around for a long time.
These figures just back this up.

I'd guess that more PS jobs require 3rd Level qualifications hence some of the disparity.
The PS figures are skewed with the top heavy long serving members who are at the top of their increments & grades.

Assuming the figure of approx 300,000 public sector people is accurate.

(Quoted here http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0429/1224295673614.html )

You would need a lot of people top heavy to pull that average up by a 1/3rd.
Or you would need a smaller amount on something astronomical (Probably in the millions) which is less likely imho. I need to see a breakdown of who earns what to be anywhere near accurate.