Directors Of Services Costing €1m annually in Local Authorities

Freddie59

Top civil servants in local authorities cost about €1m per council annually, despite emergency pay cuts and calls to slash the number of senior lucrative posts.

An Irish Examiner investigation into the pay of top officials shows that although pay rates were cut in 2009, the highest earners remain protected.

With homeowners being forced to pay €100 towards local services, figures reveal many county councils are top-heavy with senior staff, and several people earn in excess of €100,000.

Directors of services — among the most lucrative roles — start on €90,453 and receive annual increments of about €4,000 until they reach €106,900.

Most councils have at least three or four directors of services but some have five or more, including Kerry, Galway, Donegal, Wicklow, Kildare, Carlow, Cork, and Dún Laoighre-Rathdown.

The figures also highlight stark inconsistencies between different authorities, some of which serve similar populations.

Whereas Carlow has a population of 54,532 and five directors of services, Westmeath with a population of 85,961 has just two.


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/councils-pay-1m-annually-to-senior-staff-189896.html#ixzz1rdtY9VM0

Seriously. Librarians? €106k a year? FFS.:mad:

Morlar

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are extremely generous with other peoples money. Nice to see not everyone is affected by the economy at the moment.

aquaman

Directors of service are also a new layer of management created under "better local government" in the early 2000's

The old structure (in the smaller counties anyway) had all technical staff answering to one county engineer who reported to the county manager.
and all admin staff answering to one county secretary who also reported to the county manager.

The county engineer and secretary roles were removed and replaced with, for each section of the council: a director of services who reports to the manager and a SEO and Senior engineer reporting to the director in each section..

Put simply, 2 senior management roles were quashed and replaced with 3 for each section of the council. Typically the councils are divided into 4 sections (more in some cases as OP mentioned and less in others). So 12 new senior management positions instead of two!

These director of service positions until recent wage cuts in public service jobs were rewarded with substantial bonuses (10-15k). When pay was cut the bonus was considered part of the wages and therefore the base salary not reduced.

micropig

the sky is blue :P

suicide_circus

They're worth every penny. In fact, I think salaries for top civil servants should be doubled, if not tripled. Spending on education, health care and social services should be reduced to pay for these increases.

smash

Oh to be paid and given promotions based on length of service rather than merit.

StephenHendry

they are specialised people who will no doubt be needed by LA's for a whole range of different things. this position means that they will be well paid which means three figure salaries. thats just the way it is and no doubt if LAs could use these people for a lesser salary they would but in reality they couldnt.

a lot of what you say OP is back to the argument of top civil servants being paid a lot. they always were anyway whether in good times or bad as the case is at the moment.

SEPT 23 1989

But.. but ..the household charge is meant for parks and other essential services

SHOWER OF CORRUPT B@STARDS

K-9

Freddie59 wrote: »

Seriously. Librarians? €106k a year? FFS.:mad:

Hardly for administering late fines in fairness!

I know Donegal has had a fair chunk cut of the wage bill but it's probably mostly temporary staff and retirements.

mikemac1

County librarians earn up to €84,000, while Dublin city librarian earns, or will earn, €106,900. Sligo’s chief librarian has a salary of €86,573.

Sweeeet

I choose the wrong career

micropig

StephenHendry wrote: »

they are specialised people who will no doubt be needed by LA's for a whole range of different things. this position means that they will be well paid which means three figure salaries. thats just the way it is and no doubt if LAs could use these people for a lesser salary they would but in reality they couldnt.

a lot of what you say OP is back to the argument of top civil servants being paid a lot. they always were anyway whether in good times or bad as the case is at the moment.

Maybe not as needed as you think

"A report in 2010 by the local government efficiency review group, set up by John Gormley, called for the number of staff at director of service level to be reduced "by at least 20%".

The report also recommended a 15% reduction in the number of staff at senior executive levels, and a 15% reduction in the numbers at senior engineer, executive engineer and assistant engineer levels."

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/councils-pay-1m-annually-to-senior-staff-189896.html#ixzz1reOBVoMb



Jobs for the boys;););)

Freddie59

StephenHendry wrote: »

they are specialised people who will no doubt be needed by LA's for a whole range of different things. this position means that they will be well paid which means three figure salaries. thats just the way it is and no doubt if LAs could use these people for a lesser salary they would but in reality they couldnt.

a lot of what you say OP is back to the argument of top civil servants being paid a lot. they always were anyway whether in good times or bad as the case is at the moment.

? A librarian?????:eek:

micropig

Freddie59 wrote: »

? A librarian?????:eek:

Yes, but they have to be able to read:rolleyes:, although in true public sector style, they probably get an allowance from having this skill;)

Freddie59

micropig wrote: »

Yes, but they have to be able to read:rolleyes:, although in true public sector style, they probably get an allowance from having this skill;)

Indeed.:rolleyes::mad:

Immaculate Pasta

Freddy59 in another angry at big businesses/government thread shocker. :eek:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981154

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78038063

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981509

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77839971

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981128

6th thread in the last 2 weeks alone :eek:

Bullseye1

Pointing out waste and over spending in government is a worth while discussion especially in our current economic situation. And very relevant when taking the household tax into account.

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

Freddy59 in another angry at big businesses/government thread shocker. :eek:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981154

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78038063

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981509

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77839971

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981128

6th thread in the last 2 weeks alone :eek:

Freddie59

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

Freddy59 in another angry at big businesses/government thread shocker. :eek:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981154

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78038063

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981509

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77839971

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77981128

6th thread in the last 2 weeks alone :eek:

Wonderful post.:rolleyes: What do you suggest? Ignore it and it might go away? The very attitude that has brought us to the abyss.

I've just had a look at the threads you start yourself. Reality indeed.

micropig

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Pointing out waste and over spending in government is a worth while discussion especially in our current economic situation. And very relevant when taking the household tax into account.

Sure, isn't that what got us it to this mess, some on the take and everyone else turning a blind eye?

pconn062

Freddie59 wrote: »

Wonderful post.:rolleyes: What do you suggest? Ignore it and it might go away? The very attitude that has brought us to the abyss.

Are you serious with this?? You make it sound like the Armageddon.

Freddie59

pconn062 wrote: »

Are you serious with this?? You make it sound like the Armageddon.

It is economic Armageddon my friend. Make no mistake about it.

yosemite_sam

divide by two

ejmaztec

Freddie59 wrote: »

? A librarian?????:eek:

It's fuckin hard work looking after all those billions and billions of words, if one word disappears from a book it can really screw up the plot.

....and then there's the SWAT team that gets sent out when some scumbag is late returning books, those people don't come cheap.

Toby Take a Bow

Freddie59 wrote: »

? A librarian?????:eek:

Sure, just get in anyone to do their jobs. Isn't it just shushing and looking cross at school kids? That you're focusing on one of the few valuable positions mentioned in the article says a lot.

Top civil servants have always been paid too much, there's nothing new in this report (although I'm sure a similar thread will be started when 'new', 'shocking' evidence emerges next week). A simple way to avoid the problems of cutting through deals and agreements and having strikes and the like is to increase tax on top-earners. Top-earners still earn their high wages, but a lot of the money goes back into government coffers.

Immaculate Pasta

Freddie59 wrote: »

Wonderful post.:rolleyes: What do you suggest? Ignore it and it might go away? The very attitude that has brought us to the abyss.

I've just had a look at the threads you start yourself. Reality indeed.

I've attempted to engage you in debate in a previous thread of yours on the economic situation and you never replied (I'll find the post for it now - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77849561&postcount=34). Your answer to the problem seems to be starting more and more threads and making lots of :mad: and :rolleyes: faces and putting figures in bold without actually giving a constructive opinion yourself.

I don't start threads on this, not because I don't know about the situation, but because I don't want to spend my spare time on the internet talking about and getting angry about the economy, I want to have a laugh which is I frequent After Hours. If you want a serious debate post these threads on the Irish Economy forum.

Big Nasty

How many local authorities do we have in this country? There's four in Dublin alone with a population of 1.8 million. There's 2.6 million in the greater Manchester area and AFAIK they have only one authority.

juan.kerr

So cut services and keep sky high salaries. They have their priorities right anyway.

RobbieTheRobber

MCMLXXV wrote: »

How many local authorities do we have in this country? There's four in Dublin alone with a population of 1.8 million. There's 2.6 million in the greater Manchester area and AFAIK they have only one authority.

There are ten councils in the greater manchester area which is what your population count refers to.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/100004/the_council_and_democracy/66/councils_in_greater_manchester/1

Freddie59

juan.kerr wrote: »

So cut services and keep sky high salaries. They have their priorities right anyway.

Thats the long and the short of it really. This is the first time - ever - that Public sector employees will be impacted by the real economic world. And they don't like it. Looking for "guarantees" of wage continuity and no compulsory redundancies. FFS it is truly surreal.

Freddie59

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

There are ten councils in the greater manchester area which is what your population count refers to.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/100004/the_council_and_democracy/66/councils_in_greater_manchester/1

Equally somewhere the size of London has only one Fire chief.....while we have one in every County.:rolleyes:

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Sure, just get in anyone to do their jobs. Isn't it just shushing and looking cross at school kids? That you're focusing on one of the few valuable positions mentioned in the article says a lot.

Top civil servants have always been paid too much, there's nothing new in this report (although I'm sure a similar thread will be started when 'new', 'shocking' evidence emerges next week). A simple way to avoid the problems of cutting through deals and agreements and having strikes and the like is to increase tax on top-earners. Top-earners still earn their high wages, but a lot of the money goes back into government coffers.

Ah come on Toby. FFS - €106k a year. There's no defending it - or any of the other salaries - really. And italicising words doesn't detract that they ARE truly shocking - and a scandal.

Toby Take a Bow

Freddie59 wrote: »

Ah come on Toby. FFS - €106k a year. There's no defending it - or any of the other salaries - really. And italicising words doesn't detract that they ARE truly shocking - and a scandal.

I find it bemusing that someone who constantly places words in bold and uses smiley faces beyond any normal 'need' to use smiley faces criticises my use of italics. Especially when I didn't use italics. Here's a confused face for you:

You've also missed the entire point of my post in order to harp on about your original point. I actually argued against their pay being so high, and offered a way in which to cut that pay.

You really do seem to miss the entire point of peoples' posts in order to give the impression of responding while simply repeating what you say in the numerous threads you start, which are all about the same thing.

Dudess

Close relative of mine became a director of services in 2001, salary was nothing near the one in that piece - don't believe everything you read. He had been employed by that local authority for 25 years, working his way up the ranks. Prior to securing employment there, he had spent 10 years working various contracts - some public sector, some private. He started off as an entry-level technician. Despite opportunities and experience in both public and private, he ultimately chose public because of the security - the money was FAR higher in the private sector for the work he was trained in.

To anyone reasonable, he earned that role. But carry on, rabble-rousing and drama is more fun.

I'm sparing with this word as I generally hate it, but... begrudgery definitely seems to be at the root of the public sector hate.

Immaculate Pasta

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I find it bemusing that someone who constantly places words in bold and uses smiley faces beyond any normal 'need' to use smiley faces criticises my use of italics. Especially when I didn't use italics. Here's a confused face for you:

You've also missed the entire point of my post in order to harp on about your original point. I actually argued against their pay being so high, and offered a way in which to cut that pay.

You really do seem to miss the entire point of peoples' posts in order to give the impression of responding while simply repeating what you say in the numerous threads you start, which are all about the same thing.

Couldn't agree more. The time I've attempted to debate with him he's ignored me and he's ignored my answer in this thread. He's ignored me TWO times :mad::rolleyes::mad::rolleyes::mad::rolleyes:

TwoShedsJackson

A tax on 'the PS will destroy us all' threads started by Freddie, and an extra tax every time he uses the 'rolleyes' smiley as a devestating respone to someone who doesn't agree with him would have us out of austerity in no time.

admiralofthefleet

glad i didnt pay the household charge

Freddie59

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

glad i didnt pay the household charge

Interesting to see the usual suspects go on about rabble, rabble, "entitlements" blah blah. Nothing changes the stark economic realities which face us. For all your posturing.:P

Freddie59

Dudess wrote: »

Close relative of mine became a director of services in 2001, salary was nothing near the one in that piece - don't believe everything you read. He had been employed by that local authority for 25 years, working his way up the ranks. Prior to securing employment there, he had spent 10 years working various contracts - some public sector, some private. He started off as an entry-level technician. Despite opportunities and experience in both public and private, he ultimately chose public because of the security - the money was FAR higher in the private sector for the work he was trained in.

To anyone reasonable, he earned that role. But carry on, rabble-rousing and drama is more fun.

Reasonable would be appreciating that the country can no longer sustain the huge salaries and "entitlements" of public sector workers.

Reasonable would be the same workers realising the position their employer is in.

Reasonable would be the Public Sector operating under the same financial constraints as the private Sector.

Reasonable would be the government and Senior Civil Servants realising that the game is well and truly up.

But hey - reason seems to have taken a holiday in this fair isle of ours. As is evidenced by the few posts from the usual suspects above.

We cannot sustain our current level of debt.

We cannot continue to keep the same staffing levels or costs of the PS.

This is economics folks. Live with it. There is no avoiding it.

For begrudgery write reality and you're just about right.

Freddie59

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

A tax on 'the PS will destroy us all' threads started by Freddie, and an extra tax every time he uses the 'rolleyes' smiley as a devestating respone to someone who doesn't agree with him would have us out of austerity in no time.

By PS you mean Private Sector?

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

which are all about the same thing.

Indeed. Which is the absence of money to continue paying artificially high Public Sector salaries and "entitlements". And I make no apologies for it. Ever.

Francie Barrett

Blast them with..

No wait.

micropig

Freddie59 wrote: »

By PS you mean Private Sector?

Of course any taxes mention are in relation to the private sector.....we couldn't be going touching the public sector, after all they're entitled to it, Unlike the private sector, they need petrol in their cars to get to work:D

Freddie59

micropig wrote: »

Of course any taxes mention are in relation to the private sector.....we couldn't be going touching the public sector, after all they're entitled to it, Unlike the private sector, they need petrol in their cars to get to work:D

Yep. As usual.

Dudess

Perhaps address all points put to you instead of the ones that are easy to answer. In order to be taken seriously like.

AskMyChocolate

Heh Freddie. Just a couple of points that I feel are worth making. Any independent study that has ever been done has concluded that senior staff in the public service are poorly paid when compared with their private sector counterparts. In the same way as they have always concluded that junior staff are better remunerated than their counterparts in the private sector.

Now,personally, I have no problem with this, as I think it's deplorable the way the disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years, but that's just a matter of personal ideology.

Simply put Freddie; you can't have it both ways. You have asked in several threads before for PS wages to be pegged to those in the private sector, and while this would certainly reduce pay at lower levels it would increase pay for senior PS workers, which this thread is about.

On the subject of senior librarians, do you imagine that the senior executives in BoI, AIB, VHI, ESB, O2 etc. in charge of account archival and records are on less than 80k a year. They aren't.

Choco.

Doc Ruby

This is how the game is played folks, here and everywhere else. They close garda stations, shut down schools and let people rot on trolleys in hospital corridors to scare citizens into paying higher taxes, while the enormous middle management rump and "change of job title means extra everything" crowd carries on in the airy back offices without a bother.

This is how the game is played, and they know very well how to play it.

Dudess

Too many administrators for too much paperwork in the public sector I think - not that I know for certain, but it does look that way to me, especially in Health. The person I'm related to who was a director of services though had to work his ass off and was badly needed to manage things efficiently. If there are surplus personnel, we should at least know which ones before lynching.

Choco, you won't get a response - perhaps just a rolleyes - as you pose points that are too inconvenient to acknowledge.

micropig

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Heh Freddie. Just a couple of points that I feel are worth making. Any independent study that has ever been done has concluded that senior staff in the public service are poorly paid when compared with their private sector counterparts. In the same way as they have always concluded that junior staff are better remunerated than their counterparts in the private sector.

Any links?

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Now,personally, I have no problem with this, as I think it's deplorable the way the disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years, but that's just a matter of personal ideology.

Private sector can do what they like, within the law. If people don't like it they leave. Taxpayers are not paying their wages.

If you meant

disparity disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private public sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years

Yes it is

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Simply put Freddie; you can't have it both ways. You have asked in several threads before for PS wages to be pegged to those in the private sector, and while this would certainly reduce pay at lower levels it would increase pay for senior PS workers, which this thread is about.

Senior level salaries should be capped at a reasonable level. You get job security instead. Taxpayers are paying your salaries

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

On the subject of senior librarians, do you imagine that the senior executives in BoI, AIB, VHI, ESB, O2 etc. in charge of account archival and records are on less than 80k a year. They aren't.

Choco.

All are being paid too much, one does not justify the other. If we had to have capped the whole lot of them years ago and not let it get out of hand as we did, the country would be in a better position now. The celtic tiger has shown us that paying extremely high salaries does not attract the best people for the position, in fact we have a history of putting morons in extremely well paid and responsible positions.

Toby Take a Bow

Freddie59 wrote: »

Indeed. Which is the absence of money to continue paying artificially high Public Sector salaries and "entitlements". And I make no apologies for it. Ever.

Yeah. Nice skirting of how you completely missed the whole point of my post. Interestingly, though, you proved my point by reverting back to the same idea you have at the beginning of every thread. There are a good few posts you missed when you cherry picked the parts you responded to. Maybe have a look through them and answer the points.

micropig wrote: »

Of course any taxes mention are in relation to the private sector.....we couldn't be going touching the public sector, after all they're entitled to it, Unlike the private sector, they need petrol in their cars to get to work:D

How are the taxes referred to just in relation to the private sector? If you tax a private sector worker and a public sector worker the same rate, do they not pay the same tax?

micropig

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

A tax on 'the PS will destroy us all' threads started by Freddie, and an extra tax every time he uses the 'rolleyes' smiley as a devestating respone to someone who doesn't agree with him would have us out of austerity in no time.

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

How are the taxes referred to just in relation to the private sector? If you tax a private sector worker and a public sector worker the same rate, do they not pay the same tax?

TJS referred to a tax on the PS. PS can stand for both public and private sector. It was not I who differentiated between more taxes for the PS, just trying to clarify the code being used and understand the comment as it was meant..

Now, keep up:p

AskMyChocolate

micropig wrote: »

Any links?

I'm afraid I don't know how to link things:o, however Google or a trip to the CSO website should do it. Btw, are you disputing the truth of these studies, and if so which part?



Private sector can do what they like, within the law. If people don't like it they leave. Taxpayers are not paying their wages.

On the contrary, they are, whether directly through the behaviour of senior bankers, senior industrialists, etc. or indirectly through the erosion of the tax base and the destruction of the domestic economy.

If you meant


Yes it is

Obviously, it's not what I meant, otherwise I would have said it. Why not address what I did type?



Senior level salaries should be capped at a reasonable level. You get job security instead. Taxpayers are paying your salaries.





All are being paid too much, one does not justify the other. If we had to have capped the whole lot of them years ago and not let it get out of hand as we did, the country would be in a better position now. The celtic tiger has shown us that paying extremely high salaries does not attract the best people for the position, in fact we have a history of putting morons in extremely well paid and responsible positions.

I agree, and as stated earlier, this could be addressed by a higher tax-rate for top earners, although, as a lot of top earners in the private sector are not PAYE workers, this leads to a lot of tax evasion/avoidance in the private sector.

micropig

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't know how to link things, however Google or a trip to the CSO website should do it. Btw, are you disputing the truth of these studies, and if so which part?

Copy web address. press world icon with links.paste

From CSO 2011 Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.1% annually compared with a fall of
0.5% in the public sector over the year bringing average weekly earnings in Q4 2011 to €614.99 and €905.80 respectively.

The CSO figures can be interpreted in many ways

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I agree, and as stated earlier, this could be addressed by a higher tax-rate for top earners, although, as a lot of top earners in the private sector are not PAYE workers, this leads to a lot of tax evasion/avoidance in the private sector.

Why is it preferable to you to go down the route of higher tax instead of pay cut, especially if most of the higher paid private sector don't pay tax as you stated? Tax private business too much and it stifles free enterprise and entrepreneurship, Companies who can, will relocate elsewhere

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

On the contrary, they are, whether directly through the behaviour of senior bankers, senior industrialists, etc. or indirectly through the erosion of the tax base and the destruction of the domestic economy

How is money coming out of the exchequer if I sell a pack of biscuits I've produced to you?

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Obviously, it's not what I meant, otherwise I would have said it. Why not address what I did type?

OK, I quoted what you wrote below

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Now,personally, I have no problem with this, as I think it's deplorable the way the disparity between senior staff and junior staff in the private sector has been allowed to balloon over the last forty years, but that's just a matter of personal ideology.

I don;'t see the connection between this and the levels of senior pay in the public sector. The wages are not coming from the exchequer - yes bankers etc, but I class them as overpaid morons whose wages should also be cut, now that the state owns them.