Croke Park Agreement beyond 2014

n97 mini

ardmacha wrote: »

Anybody can retire when they like, they just get less pension!

Depends on the role. My father retired at 50 from the Gardaí on full pension.

K-9

woodoo wrote: »

Some interestig figures there. He is dead right though about that guy writing for the Indo. His figures are a mess. Heavily doctored to present the PS is as bad a light as possible.

I do like Coffey, very analytical and usually not that biased. He's just cutting through the bs there and he can be quite scathing of the PS when he wants to be, he wouldn't be a fan of the Croker agreement but he can say fair dues when needed,

Godge

ncdadam wrote: »

Do you think it's right that the average PS weekly wage is €300 more than the same worker in the private sector?

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fnational-news%2Fpublic-workers-pay-300-ahead-of-private-sector-3214933.html&ei=zMBHUP7lHZCXhQfm24HIDw&usg=AFQjCNExUIFdDRp-VL9JwzHCKNJJlFqLqg&sig2=d4SEv9HX7PF8g8HxjphqLw

Wasn't it benchmarked during the 'tiger' years?
Why not now?

ncdadam wrote: »

I would have thought that it works a bit like this.
1. Take a certain position in the workforce.
2. Find the average wage for this position in the private sector.
3. Set wage for the same position in the PS at the private sector average.

In Ireland we do the first two things and then set the PS wage at 50% more than the average.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBenchmarking&ei=-MNHUILwF5GYhQe5qIH4Bg&usg=AFQjCNF53su6WGx1Vk_THfzpqy4xwybnFw&sig2=g9QahhGETa2ewq-jcUvexg

Seeing as people are asking the question about how benchmarking was done. Well if you are going to make assertions, maybe you should check the facts.

http://benchmarking.gov.ie/Reports.aspx

Page 77 onwards of the second report sets out how it was done. The weighted average of the private sector post was compared with the weighted average of the public sector post, a 12% discount was applied to reflect the better benefits in the public sector, giving the results. Wild suggestions that 50% was added on to the average are not reflected in the reality of the study.

Interestingly, that benchmarking was for the lower-paid public servants. There is a reference to the fact that for higher-paid public servants, the comparison was with the lower quartile so the result is that higher-paid public servants were paid closer to the bottom of the private sector equivalent than lower-paid public servants. Makes a mockery of the claim that higher-paid public servants should be hit harder.

Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the 2007 benchmarking report was never fully implemented so the benefits of the recommended increases never applied to the public service.

To sum up, the benchmarking body compared average with average, penalised public servants for their pension and still you have people who have done no research at all claiming that the public servants are vastly better off.

woodoo

K-9 wrote: »

I do like Coffey, very analytical and usually not that biased. He's just cutting through the bs there and he can be quite scathing of the PS when he wants to be, he wouldn't be a fan of the Croker agreement but he can say fair dues when needed,

All people want is the truth. Its important. The blatant spin we see in some of the papers just to further an agenda is what i don't appreciate.

Godge

n97 mini wrote: »

Depends on the role. My father retired at 50 from the Gardaí on full pension.

The security services - Gardai, prison service, fire fighters and army are the only ones who benefit from great deals like that.

Psychiatric nurses and teachers can go at 55 but the rest of the public service can only go at 60.

All of the above only apply to pre-2010 people as the rules were changed.

Farmer Pudsey

Godge wrote: »

Seeing as people are asking the question about how benchmarking was done. Well if you are going to make assertions, maybe you should check the facts.

http://benchmarking.gov.ie/Reports.aspx

Page 77 onwards of the second report sets out how it was done. The weighted average of the private sector post was compared with the weighted average of the public sector post, a 12% discount was applied to reflect the better benefits in the public sector, giving the results. Wild suggestions that 50% was added on to the average are not reflected in the reality of the study.

Interestingly, that benchmarking was for the lower-paid public servants. There is a reference to the fact that for higher-paid public servants, the comparison was with the lower quartile so the result is that higher-paid public servants were paid closer to the bottom of the private sector equivalent than lower-paid public servants. Makes a mockery of the claim that higher-paid public servants should be hit harder.

Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the 2007 benchmarking report was never fully implemented so the benefits of the recommended increases never applied to the public service.

To sum up, the benchmarking body compared average with average, penalised public servants for their pension and still you have people who have done no research at all claiming that the public servants are vastly better off.

There are lies, damm lies and then there are stastics.

The reality is that the average PS wage is 45% higher than the average private sector wage when compared to the average private sector wage or the average private sector wage is 30% less than the average public sector wage when compare to PS wage.

There was two benchmarking reports they destroyed the first after they implemented it.

coolshannagh28

barneystinson wrote: »

ncdadam wrote: »

Do you think it's right that the average PS weekly wage is €300 more than the same worker in the private sector?

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fnational-news%2Fpublic-workers-pay-300-ahead-of-private-sector-3214933.html&ei=zMBHUP7lHZCXhQfm24HIDw&usg=AFQjCNExUIFdDRp-VL9JwzHCKNJJlFqLqg&sig2=d4SEv9HX7PF8g8HxjphqLw

Wasn't it benchmarked during the 'tiger' years?
Why not now?

Have you actually read all of that article you linked?

I note you've cherrypicked headline information to suit your agenda, but what about the following:

"The CSO figures also show that the bigger the employer, the more workers earned. Workers in a company with fewer than 50 employees had average weekly earnings of €532.

This rose to €634 in enterprises with 50 to 250 employees and increased to €820 for firms with more than 250 employees.

According to the last CSO index, the jobs embargo across the public sector continues to bite, with numbers employed falling by almost 26,000 in the past year.
There are 380,800 people working in the public sector, down by 6.3pc over the year to June."

What that report tells me is that the pay gap between public sector employees and their counterparts in large private sector entities is much less than this oft-quoted meaningless headline "average".

I am in a managerial grade, which requires an Honours Degree and/or professional accountancy/solicitor qualification, and am still several increments away from the "average" pay... I could walk out of the PS and into a 15-20% better paying job in the private sector, either here or abroad, but I actually like the job I do, and am happy to trade off immediate financial reward for job satisfaction, security, more annual leave, flexi-time and a defined benefit pension.

My point is, everything isn't black and white

Hearsay

Godge

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

There are lies, damm lies and then there are stastics.

The reality is that the average PS wage is 45% higher than the average private sector wage when compared to the average private sector wage or the average private sector wage is 30% less than the average public sector wage when compare to PS wage.

There was two benchmarking reports they destroyed the first after they implemented it.

There is lies, damn lies and statistics all right but that is what you are relying on by quoting the CSO.

If the public service requires a lawyer, then compare his salary to a lawyer employed by a solicitor's firm and compare him to the average salary rather than the Arthur Cox or Goodbody salary. That is what benchmarking does.

Now if the mix of people is different, say more labourers and less lawyers in the private sector than in the public sector then yes, the statistic you quote will show public servants earning more than private sector even if people in the same jobs are being paid exactly the same salary. It is exactly for situations such as one you use that the phrase was originally constructed.

barneystinson

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

There are lies, damm lies and then there are stastics.

The reality is that the average PS wage is 45% higher than the average private sector wage when compared to the average private sector wage or the average private sector wage is 30% less than the average public sector wage when compare to PS wage.

There was two benchmarking reports they destroyed the first after they implemented it.

Ah come off it now, are you SERIOUSLY still going to bang on about averages? There are no minimum wage jobs in the public sector, are you suggesting that some people in the PS should be on minimum wage? Unless you are, then if you have any understanding of how to calculate an average, then it should be obvious even to you that taking a single all-encompassing average is totally meaningless - it doesn't compare like with like.

It'd be like us talking about how much the "average" farmer makes, without distinguishing for size/quality of holding, type of activity etc...

And interestingly, agri is one of the few private sector areas not included for the calculation of the CSO figure you've quoted above. Why not? Presumably because the farmers like to play their cards close to their chests; wouldn't want to be telling the CSO what they're making, that wouldn't do at all at all...!

barneystinson

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Hearsay

What is?

Farmer Pudsey

barneystinson wrote: »

Ah come off it now, are you SERIOUSLY still going to bang on about averages? There are no minimum wage jobs in the public sector, are you suggesting that some people in the PS should be on minimum wage? Unless you are, then if you have any understanding of how to calculate an average, then it should be obvious even to you that taking a single all-encompassing average is totally meaningless - it doesn't compare like with like.

It'd be like us talking about how much the "average" farmer makes, without distinguishing for size/quality of holding, type of activity etc...

And interestingly, agri is one of the few private sector areas not included for the calculation of the CSO figure you've quoted above. Why not? Presumably because the farmers like to play their cards close to their chests; wouldn't want to be telling the CSO what they're making, that wouldn't do at all at all...!

First the average public sector wage in Ireland is about the same as the UK however the average public servant is paid about 20% more than his UK compatriot.

This is because the average farm income is stastically so low. By the way I am a PAYE worker as well as farming part time. As a paye worker outside looking in I thaught it was more profitable than it is. Yes there are some farmers that are earning a good living however there are a lot of fulltime farmers who are single men who barly earn a subsistance wage. It biggest problem is that it is capital intensive especially the drystock industry.

ncdadam

Godge wrote: »

The security services - Gardai, prison service, fire fighters and army are the only ones who benefit from great deals like that.

Psychiatric nurses and teachers can go at 55 but the rest of the public service can only go at 60.

All of the above only apply to pre-2010 people as the rules were changed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't retirement age now 68?
Or at least people won't qualify for the state pension until that age?

Idbatterim

Originally Posted by coolshannagh28

Public opinion is against the CPA

Source?

the endless threads on boards.ie and endless comments after any article i have read at independent.ie... oh and common sense, i think its coming to a head now that services are being cut again and again, and the vulnerable and disabled being hit contiously (while many PS workers live in cuckoo land), I have read comments from others that refer to it as disgusting, Id say thats a understatement!

barneystinson

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

First the average public sector wage in Ireland is about the same as the UK however the average public servant is paid about 20% more than his UK compatriot.

Now that makes much more sense as a comparative to base an argument on than the spurious stat you were using above.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This is because the average farm income is stastically so low.

Where's the statistics on this? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering who / how these stats are collected.

Idbatterim

Are you saying cut those at the top by 35-40k or cup everyone down to a max PS salary of 35-40k? Assuming you mean the former

im saying i would cut the pay of anyone above this level of pay... could the government create a new higher PAYE rate for PS employees or increase pension levy?

Dannyboy83

woodoo wrote: »

Maybe that is why the government aren't in a rush to cut the pay of public servants. And its also the perfect illustration of why cutting PS pay is not the answer to our problems.

There would be mayhem and uproar if PS pay was cut by 20% especially after the pension levy and the 2010 cut. All that for 1.44billion. Not going to be done for that sort of saving.

That is certainly one valid point, but uproar might be a minor concern.

An accountant I know who deals with a lot of public sector clients has said despite the fact that many of his clients haven't had much in the way of direct pay decreases, their net income has been reduced in other ways due to indirect factors such as reduced overtime etc.

Not something I've ever seen reported in the mainstream media.
We always see reports of how high the average ps wage is, but not reports on how much it may have fallen for specific individuals.

Despite their high pay, a lot of these people are actually already struggling, due to their commitments. The benchmarking process was a complete screw up because their pay was benchmarked against a wildly inflated Irish private sector instead of comparable European public sectors while their mortgage commitments were based on unsustainable circumstances in post-pyramid Ireland.

Anyway, the interesting point he made, was that a 20% type pay cut is a financial impossibility where his public sector clients are concerned, unless some type of debt relief mechanism has been put in place by the government; the reason being that his public sector clients have either significantly higher mortgage repayments or several different properties to pay for, as the case may be.

So according to him, if cuts are to be enforced, then only pensions can face a 20% type reduction. (From my understanding of Roddy Molly and so on, the government cannot cut pensions in this manner).
If salaries are cut, then we will see the type of mortgage tsunami that has been predicted since the beginning.

Since the beginning of this crisis, people have been scratching their heads at the way lower paid public servants have been hit equally as higher paid public servants.
Personally I've often heard public servants comment that they'd be happy to take a pay cut if their mortgage commitments are also reduced.

The point to all my waffle is that a 20% salary cut probably isn't feasible, since either way, the taxpayer will pay the difference - be it through higher rates of pay or through mortgage defaults.

In this case, the politically easier option is also the socially less destructive option.

beeno67

deise blue wrote: »

It would appear that Ireland has fallen significantly interms of OECD salaries bearing in mind the pay reductions allied to the pay freeze since this data was published- rapidly approaching the OECD average perhaps ?

Don't be so Conpletely ****ing stupid you moron

coolshannagh28

barneystinson wrote: »

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Hearsay

What is?

All reference to your your own personal circumstance, this is an anonymous forum where you are insisting everything be linked and proven.

beeno67

http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/public-sector-pay-at-a-glance

Good figures here. Irish public sector work far less hours than most, get paid more than most

murphaph

barneystinson wrote: »

Ah come off it now, are you SERIOUSLY still going to bang on about averages? There are no minimum wage jobs in the public sector, are you suggesting that some people in the PS should be on minimum wage?

Cleaners, hospital porters, security/watchmen would all be minimum wage jobs in the private sector.

Count Dooku

Godge wrote: »

Seeing as people are asking the question about how benchmarking was done. Well if you are going to make assertions, maybe you should check the facts.

http://benchmarking.gov.ie/Reports.aspx

Page 77 onwards of the second report sets out how it was done. The weighted average of the private sector post was compared with the weighted average of the public sector post, a 12% discount was applied to reflect the better benefits in the public sector, giving the results. Wild suggestions that 50% was added on to the average are not reflected in the reality of the study.

Interestingly, that benchmarking was for the lower-paid public servants. There is a reference to the fact that for higher-paid public servants, the comparison was with the lower quartile so the result is that higher-paid public servants were paid closer to the bottom of the private sector equivalent than lower-paid public servants. Makes a mockery of the claim that higher-paid public servants should be hit harder.

Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the 2007 benchmarking report was never fully implemented so the benefits of the recommended increases never applied to the public service.

To sum up, the benchmarking body compared average with average, penalised public servants for their pension and still you have people who have done no research at all claiming that the public servants are vastly better off.

Main purpose for benchmarking commission was find an excuse for buying votes of public servants by Fianna Fail
From benchmarking website

Public sector earnings premium by occupation ranges from - 2.2% to 46.9%
Figure 2.3 compares public and private sector earnings by occupation. I t shows that with the
exception of the associate professional and technical occupation, public sector workers earn far in
excess of those in the private sector working in similar occupations. The public sector premium was
found to be particularly large for those engaged in personal and protective services (47% ); plant
and machine operatives (41% ); managers and administrators (31% ); professional staff (28% );
and clerical and secretarial staff (26% ). While it may be difficult to compare the occupations for
certain public sector workers with corresponding occupations in the private sector, other
occupations in both sectors are very similar and provide clear evidence of a substantial public
sector earnings premium. The clerical and secretarial category is one such example duties and
responsibilities in both the public and private sectors are likely to be very similar. The 26%
earnings premium provided to public sector clerical workers therefore clearly demonstrates that
workers doing similar work earn more in the public sector.

page 7
http://benchmarking.gov.ie/Documents/IBEC%20Submission.pdf

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

Interestingly, that benchmarking was for the lower-paid public servants. There is a reference to the fact that for higher-paid public servants, the comparison was with the lower quartile so the result is that higher-paid public servants were paid closer to the bottom of the private sector equivalent than lower-paid public servants. Makes a mockery of the claim that higher-paid public servants should be hit harder

I personally think higher paid public servants probably earn on average less than they would in the private sector but I feel the level of accountability is much lower: when was the last time a senior public servant actually lost their job?

I do feel that on average "lower paid" public servants are actually proportionally much better paid than their private sector counterparts. A "low paid" PS admin worker on 30k is getting 50% more than a low paid admin worker in the private sector on 20k (of which there are very many!). There are also vastly more "lower paid" PS workers out there than higher paid ones, so tackling this end would undoubtedly yield a greater saving, but the govt has no stomach to tell these "lower paid" workers that they are in fact well paid for the job they do.

kippy

Just as a matter of interest, for those of you that believe pay and conditions should be cut further in the Public service, exactly how much and what do you want to see cut further.

Farmer Pudsey

barneystinson wrote: »

Now that makes much more sense as a comparative to base an argument on than the spurious stat you were using above.

Where's the statistics on this? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering who / how these stats are collected.

I have quoted before he difference between the level of public pay in Ireland and the UK. The Trioka have also written about it. Our PS are all way better paid than there European counterparts

murphaph wrote: »

I personally think higher paid public servants probably earn on average less than they would in the private sector but I feel the level of accountability is much lower: when was the last time a senior public servant actually lost their job?

I do feel that on average "lower paid" public servants are actually proportionally much better paid than their private sector counterparts. A "low paid" PS admin worker on 30k is getting 50% more than a low paid admin worker in the private sector on 20k (of which there are very many!). There are also vastly more "lower paid" PS workers out there than higher paid ones, so tackling this end would undoubtedly yield a greater saving, but the govt has no stomach to tell these "lower paid" workers that they are in fact well paid for the job they do.

I disagree this is a fallacey that some people cannot understand. The average PS wages is 930/week this means that for every PS that gets paid 30K then are PS earning above 48.5K. The public servise would alwys paid there lower paid staff above the going rate as do banks and bigger orginisations. It is the rate of pay of higher paid PS is the issue and the number.
Accross Europe very few PS have a salery in excess of 60K this is not so in Ireland.The amount of PS that have a salary in excess of 100K in ireland is substantial. A low paid PS on 30K will recieve a pension of only 15K with max service. This is only slightly above the Contributary pension. They are much more likly to work until they are 65 as cannot afford to retire and take the incom hit it would entail. A PS earning 60K is much more likly to retire as early as possible and the higher the wage the more likly they are to go at 60 some of these will get part time jobs to supplement there income. So we get caught with the double whammy we pay them more and pay there pension earlier and much longer ( reserch has shown that the more you earn the longer you live).
This falasey that it is lowerpaid CS that is the issue is bull.

HellFireClub

kippy wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, for those of you that believe pay and conditions should be cut further in the Public service, exactly how much and what do you want to see cut further.

I'd like to see whatever cuts are necessary, to make people who are on salaries of 40K-50K, in jobs that they simply cannot be dismissed from, actually grateful for what they have. Anyone in the private sector who is in a secure job of 40K-50K a year, is extremely extremely grateful. In the PS, it seems to me, that someone who falls within the same salary bracket, is of the view that they are poorly paid. We are always hearing the mantra, "start cutting those on over 100K"... Why 100K? Why not start at 50K or 60K?

kippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

I'd like to see whatever cuts are necessary, to make people who are on salaries of 40K-50K, in jobs that they simply cannot be dismissed from, actually grateful for what they have. Anyone in the private sector who is in a secure job of 40K-50K a year, is extremely extremely grateful. In the PS, it seems to me, that someone who falls within the same salary bracket, is of the view that they are poorly paid. We are always hearing the mantra, "start cutting those on over 100K"... Why 100K? Why not start at 50K or 60K?

So what cuts are necessary?

femur61

barneystinson wrote: »

Source?

Talk to people. Listen to newstations.

kippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

I'd like to see whatever cuts are necessary, to make people who are on salaries of 40K-50K, in jobs that they simply cannot be dismissed from, actually grateful for what they have. Anyone in the private sector who is in a secure job of 40K-50K a year, is extremely extremely grateful. In the PS, it seems to me, that someone who falls within the same salary bracket, is of the view that they are poorly paid. We are always hearing the mantra, "start cutting those on over 100K"... Why 100K? Why not start at 50K or 60K?

I'll just let you know my thoughts on this for a second.

It's not just about wage cuts. (although I do believe in the short term another 5-10% needs to come off the public pay bill, whether that be through headcount or pay or a mix)

The public service is top heavy with management grades and as such people on management salaries. People in that wage bracket 50-60K can have people management responsibilities. I know of a number of sub groups of departments (270 odd staff) where up to 20% of the staff are at a management level. (all on between 70K and 120K per annum depending on grade). There are then some staff on between 50 and 60 with people management roles also as well as their main role. This is right across the service.

The questions I would ask and that you and others have rightly broached is why there are so many of these people in the public service when:
1. People management is completely limp in the public service. A manager cannot provide a realistic carrot or a realistic stick to his/her staff.
2. There are so many outside influences on managers that they rarely come up with or develop policy themselves.
3. There is absolutely no level of accountability for managers, indeed theres not much they can be held accountable for as there are so many of them to share the decision making blame.
4. Many of these management functions are, in my opinion, mirrored across the service.

Ultimately, the people at the coal face of the public service find it more and more difficult to do their jobs, not just as a result of the economic circumstances, but also because of the lack of foresight and difficulty in getting anything do, caused by layers of management.

The client ends up tearing their hair out wondering why things take to long to do.

As an addition, the reason some of these people on 40-50K think the are poorly paid is that:
1. They have rarely, if every worked in the private sector and all they hear about are bonus and extras and higher salaries for the same work (which of course isn't 100% accurate).
2. They look at the grades above them, who probably have management roles, earning more money, with the same responsibility essentially, who have less exposure to the crappier work.
3. They have every increasing bills and ever increasing cuts to fathom. They like to let people know about this. It's just human nature.

HellFireClub

kippy wrote: »

So what cuts are necessary?

In my view, there shouldn't be a single rank & file teacher, nurse, Garda or line civil servant on a gross salary of more than 50K, INCLUDING allowances.

HellFireClub

kippy wrote: »

People in that wage bracket 50-60K can have people management responsibilities.

There is no such thing as someone having proper people management responsibilities in our public sector, because as is the norm everywhere else, pay and the increment of pay, is not properly connected to yearly performance and proper annual appraisal. If you are a manager with people management responsible in the private sector, you are responsible for managing the performance of a person or a team of people for a year and for setting the expectations for them in their role for the year, and remunerating them according to how they have performed, -vs- the performance goals that were set out at the start of the review period. Connecting pay increments to performance is completely central to achieving this.

Nowhere in our PS, is pay connected to performance in a general sense, (the exception being bonus payments for politically appointed spin doctors, etc).

So when you say people on salaries of 50-60K have people management responsibilities, I couldn't disagree more, because there is no "people management" going on, in respect of the proper and generally understood meaning of the phrase "people management".

kippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

There is no such thing as someone having proper people management responsibilities in our public sector, because as is the norm everywhere else, pay and the increment of pay, is not properly connected to yearly performance and proper annual appraisal. If you are a manager with people management responsible in the private sector, you are responsible for managing the performance of a person or a team of people for a year and for setting the expectations for them in their role for the year, and remunerating them according to how they have performed, -vs- the performance goals that were set out at the start of the review period. Connecting pay increments to performance is completely central to achieving this.

Nowhere in our PS, is pay connected to performance in a general sense, (the exception being bonus payments for politically appointed spin doctors, etc).

So when you say people on salaries of 50-60K have people management responsibilities, I couldn't disagree more, because there is no "people management" going on, in respect of the proper and generally understood meaning of the phrase "people management".

If you read the rest of my post, you'll see that I agree with that.
I wasnt justifying a salary of 50-60k because of people management responsibility. I was pointing out that there are far to many people employed on high salaries with responsibilities that mean nothing.

barneystinson

murphaph wrote: »

barneystinson wrote: »

Ah come off it now, are you SERIOUSLY still going to bang on about averages? There are no minimum wage jobs in the public sector, are you suggesting that some people in the PS should be on minimum wage?

Cleaners, hospital porters, security/watchmen would all be minimum wage jobs in the private sector.

None of the above are employed where I work, security & cleaners are contracted afaik, but I take your point.

However what I was trying to illustrate is that there are far less, if any, types or classes of job done in the PS which would pay min wage for the equivalent in the private sector. If one agrees this is the case then it follows that comparing overall averages is a nonsense, as the private sector average includes the vast majority of all min wage jobs.

I'm NOT saying there isn't a pay premium in some / many areas of the PS; I believe there is, but it's not as simple as this blanket average that the Sindo brigade like to throw around.

donalg1

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I have quoted before he difference between the level of public pay in Ireland and the UK. The Trioka have also written about it. Our PS are all way better paid than there European counterparts



I disagree this is a fallacey that some people cannot understand. The average PS wages is 930/week this means that for every PS that gets paid 30K then are PS earning above 48.5K. The public servise would alwys paid there lower paid staff above the going rate as do banks and bigger orginisations. It is the rate of pay of higher paid PS is the issue and the number.
Accross Europe very few PS have a salery in excess of 60K this is not so in Ireland.The amount of PS that have a salary in excess of 100K in ireland is substantial. A low paid PS on 30K will recieve a pension of only 15K with max service. This is only slightly above the Contributary pension. They are much more likly to work until they are 65 as cannot afford to retire and take the incom hit it would entail. A PS earning 60K is much more likly to retire as early as possible and the higher the wage the more likly they are to go at 60 some of these will get part time jobs to supplement there income. So we get caught with the double whammy we pay them more and pay there pension earlier and much longer ( reserch has shown that the more you earn the longer you live).
This falasey that it is lowerpaid CS that is the issue is bull.

The 930/week is gross pay not net, if you read the link that I think K-9 posted you would see the actual differences between the sectors and not this figure that doesnt come close.

Here is the link anyway, surprised me and made for interesting reading.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/search?q=public+sector+pay

barneystinson

donalg1 wrote: »

The 930/week is gross pay not net, if you read the link that I think KR7 posted you would see the actual differences between the sectors and not this figure that doesnt come close.

Here is the link anyway, surprised me and made for interesting reading.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/search?q=public+sector+pay

I haven't read it all yet, but it's interesting to see that the semi-states are included in the PS figure - the ESB, Bord Gais etc. whose workers haven't been hit with paycuts or pension levy. Not expressing any opinion on that, just noting the fact that their pay is inflating the PS average slightly.

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

The security services - Gardai, prison service, fire fighters and army are the only ones who benefit from great deals like that.

Psychiatric nurses and teachers can go at 55 but the rest of the public service can only go at 60.

All of the above only apply to pre-2010 people as the rules were changed.

while the rest of us mere mortals have to wait till 68

donalg1

fliball123 wrote: »

while the rest of us mere mortals have to wait till 68

Is it really 60 or is it actually the same as the private sector, I know they wont get their state pension as such until the same age as the private sector which is currently 66, or if they have 40years service they can go before that so if they want to go at 60 they would have been employed there since they were 20, and only get their full pensions if they have 40years full service iirc.

fliball123

donalg1 wrote: »

Is it really 60 or is it actually the same as the private sector, I know they wont get their state pension as such until the same age as the private sector which is currently 66, or if they have 40years service they can go before that so if they want to go at 60 they would have been employed there since they were 20, and only get their full pensions if they have 40years full service iirc.

its 68 for the state pension anyone with a private pension paying in over the last decade have taken an almighty hammering for their pensions...as they unlike public sector pensions are not protected against market force

donalg1

fliball123 wrote: »

its 68 for the state pension anyone with a private pension paying in over the last decade have taken an almighty hammering for their pensions...as they unlike public sector pensions are not protected against market force

Are you sure its now 68 as this link says otherwise

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Pages/retired.aspx

kippy

fliball123 wrote: »

while the rest of us mere mortals have to wait till 68

You have absolutely no idea of how pensions work, do you?
I thought you would have done some reading up after our last exchange.

Very few public servants would get a full public service pension at 60. 65 is the standard age or after 40 years service.
The public service pension is made up of the public service portion+the COAP which everyone gets.
The COAP portion does not become active until 68 (I am not entirely sure on this point as it is relatively new)

Market force has already hit public sector pensions, workers pay more towards them. Public sector pensions will be hit again as well no doubt.

deise blue

donalg1 wrote: »

Is it really 60 or is it actually the same as the private sector, I know they wont get their state pension as such until the same age as the private sector which is currently 66, or if they have 40years service they can go before that so if they want to go at 60 they would have been employed there since they were 20, and only get their full pensions if they have 40years full service iirc.

PS workers employed pre ' 1995 will not receive the State OAP.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

anyone with a private pension paying in over the last decade have taken an almighty hammering for their pensions...as they unlike public sector pensions are not protected against market force

I started my private pension in 2003 with AIB (PRSA) and it has gone up in value since then. Private pensions have recovered for the normal person. I think your confusion people thattook a risk and invested all their money in some bubble option.

barneystinson

beeno67 wrote: »

http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/public-sector-pay-at-a-glance

Good figures here. Irish public sector work far less hours than most, get paid more than most

That's a great link, lots of interesting information there.

You do realise though that the figures for compensation have already been adjusted to factor in the hours worked and other benefits...

ncdadam

Why don't the PS workers on here just admit how blessed they are to have a state job, are pretty much unsackable, have a very light workload, excellent pay and conditions, great holidays and a gold plated and index linked pension when they retire (some at a much younger age than the rest of normal society) and stop crying about pay cuts and pension levy's?

It would make people who work in the real economy, and pay the wages of the above, sick having to listen to the 'poor me' attitude of some of the PS posters on this thread.

Grow up and count your blessings.

Head The Wall

martian1980 wrote: »

I was calling you on a bullsh*t claim that you made, and you're coming back with yet more bluster. The difference between you and the IMF/EU people is that they are putting money into the country and you're not.

Well if you want to be pedantic about it the ECB/IMF are lending money to Ireland. I am paying taxes in the UK who are also lending Ireland money.

Care to reply to that

kippy

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well if you want to be pedantic about it the ECB/IMF are lending money to Ireland. I am paying taxes in the UK who are also lending Ireland money.

Care to reply to that

Yeah the key word is "lending".
People are happy to lend to Ireland once there is a profit in it for them. You're not exactly supporting a charitable organisation.

kippy

ncdadam wrote: »

Why don't the PS workers on here just admit how blessed they are to have a state job, are pretty much unsackable, have a very light workload, excellent pay and conditions, great holidays and a gold plated and index linked pension when they retire (at a much younger age than the rest of normal society) and stop crying about pay cuts and pension levy's?

It would make people who work in the real economy, and pay the wages of the above, sick having to listen to the 'poor me' attitude of some of the PS posters on this thread.

Grow up and count your blessings.

What would that achieve?

RobbieTheRobber

ncdadam wrote: »

Why don't the PS workers on here just admit how blessed they are to have a state job, are pretty much unsackable, have a very light workload, excellent pay and conditions, great holidays and a gold plated and index linked pension when they retire (at a much younger age than the rest of normal society) and stop crying about pay cuts and pension levy's?

It would make people who work in the real economy, and pay the wages of the above, sick having to listen to the 'poor me' attitude of some of the PS posters on this thread.

Grow up and count your blessings.

Im sorry do you want one Public servant to make this statement on behalf of all approx. 300,000 workers employed by the state?

You seem to have a very simplistic view of what is a public sector worker.

Head The Wall

Here is a link to the UK where they also claim a higher number of third level qualifications in their PS, same as us here. Is anyone going to explain why there is a 7% difference there and 40% difference here other than the glaringly obvious fact that they are overpaid.

Are Irish PS more educated and experienced? I doubt it based on my own experiences

Head The Wall

kippy wrote: »

Yeah the key word is "lending".
People are happy to lend to Ireland once there is a profit in it for them. You're not exactly supporting a charitable organisation.

Don't know what you are on about, you don't seem to have read what I was responding to.

kippy

Head The Wall wrote: »

Here is a link to the UK where they also claim a higher number of third level qualifications in their PS, same as us here. Is anyone going to explain why there is a 7% difference there and 40% difference here other than the glaringly obvious fact that they are overpaid.

Are Irish PS more educated and experienced? I doubt it based on my own experiences

Here we go, apples and oranges again.

How much does it cost to visit a doctor/dentist there?
What does the average solicitor earn?