Increments to be paid to highest earners

Warden13

Japer wrote: »

tayto lover wrote: »

It depends on how you define "average" though.

Look up your basic maths book. Its not rocket science;)

4 years in to the crises, average public sector wages here (in this banana republic ) are still nearly double what they are in N. Ireland/Britain.

Now which do you want us to look up an average Maths book or an average science book

tayto lover

Japer wrote: »

Look up your basic maths book. Its not rocket science;)

4 years in to the crises, average public sector wages here (in this banana republic ) are still nearly double what they are in N. Ireland/Britain.

Look up your living standards, doctors costs, VRT etc and see the difference.
Also do you expect to see someone who is uneducated in the Private Sector earning the same as a nurse, garda or soldier at the bottom of the Public Sector?

Godge

ardmacha wrote: »

Ah yes, the single transferable anti PS thread.

the usual untruthful contentions
- PS have had no pay cuts (they have)
- "everyone" else has had pay cuts (they haven't)
- "everyone" else is still having pay cuts (in 2012 many more got increases than cuts)
- "everyone" is suffering because of taxes, interest rate increases, bad summer weather etc (exactly, everyone, including the PS, suffers these things).
- payments to some individuals for increased experience are an outrage (of course don't mention that this is happening in all sectors)

and as always this cacophony of inaccuracies prevents any actual real discussion of any substance in this forum. This in reflected in what passes for the media, so there is no real pressure for government action as most "comment" is nothing more than an unsubstantiated rant based on no or misused data and which lacks credibility to any thinking person.

The truly sad thing is the 4 years into this mess there still seems to be no appreciation of detail nor willingness to analyse things and discriminating discernment seems beyond most people, only mindless chanting with the crowd.

This post should be repeated as an automatic response to any public sector thread as it sets out how the discussion should proceed. I am absolutely fed up of the default response from so many ignorant posters that the public sector is still overpaid.

I have no doubt that there are still some people in the public sector who are overpaid but some are correctly paid and some are underpaid. We should be having a nuanced discussion about how to distinguish them and deal with inevitable anomalies. If gardai are overpaid and teachers underpaid, how do we deal with that in a coherent industrial relations framework?

Similarly, has anyone else read the reports of the Croke Park Implementation Body? An hour on that website and you begin to get a feel for those sectors that have embraced change and those that have not. Should future pay rises or cuts be targetted as a result? What if the most overpaid have also embraced the most change?

We are not in the situation of three/four years ago when the country was on the brink of going bust and everyone in the public sector was clearly overpaid. We have had pay cuts in the public sector but some in the private sector (tayto lover, myself, Tesco workers, etc) have seen their pay rise over that period. General uninformed rants are no longer appropriate to the discussion.

Icepick

ardmacha wrote: »

Ah yes, the single transferable anti PS thread.

the usual untruthful contentions
- PS have had no pay cuts (they have)

source needed .. unless you are referring to those superficial cuts in '09 that have already been reversed by increments

jased10s

Fup the pay cuts.

When i cant afford to see a doc and someone on the welfare can and im paying for wealfare person something is wrong.

Godge

Icepick wrote: »

source needed .. unless you are referring to those superficial cuts in '09 that have already been reversed by increments

This is getting ridiculous. There has been a pension levy and pay cuts followed by more pay cuts for new entrants.

Please provide any reliable independent analytical source (i.e. not a rag journalist) that describes the cuts as superficial.

jased10s wrote: »

Fup the pay cuts.

When i cant afford to see a doc and someone on the welfare can and im paying for wealfare person something is wrong.

You have ranted about pay cuts for several pages now and you are turning on welfare next. Other than ranting about everyone else except you taking a cut, what do you have to contribute?


oops sorry, mistook you for Japer. But why bring welfare into a PS thread?

The Clown Man

ardmacha wrote: »

Ah yes, the single transferable anti PS thread.

Have you considered the possibility that the reason there is such an anti-PS theme recently is that because there is merit in it?

Sure, you can micro-analyse individual instances, select defensible situations, argue your point with some degree of merit, but, at the end of the day, we have all sat in a group of Public and Private sector workers together discussing the type of stuff that happens in the Public Sector and not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

The irrefutable and consistent truth is that, one way or another, the type of waste, inefficiencies, procrastination, etc. that happens at all in the PS just does not happen in what we (my group) ironically refer to as "the Real World" where claiming "entitlements" or "working to rule" gets you fired within a week.

In the vast majority of Private Sector jobs you don't have any of the following never mind all at once: a guaranteed pension, a maximum working week, overtime entitlements, mileage or other allowances, 29 days holidays and a guaranteed income for life.

In the Private Sector you don't ever see instances of: 2-3 years maternity leave fully paid, workers who are not at least 80% engaged managing to hold onto their jobs, customer service desks that only open from 10am - 3pm with an hour lunch, performance reviews completely irrelevant at interview time, or anything that simply would not fly in a meritocratic system. There are many, many more examples of things you wouldn't see than can be listed and every PS office has at least one.

Not to mention the basic wages are in general beyond anything comparable in the Private Sector.

That grinds.

And while the PS reps who are the most vocal in their defences are usually the ones that are seen here, in fact, the majority of PS workers with any will to progress despise the way the PS is run and represented. I have 3 family members, my girlfriend, and several friends in the PS, all of whom entered with a drive to succeed and will openly admit that on working for a number of years in a system that rewards laziness and not performance, have resigned to the fact that it is not at all in their best interest to perform in their jobs, but rather to get to know how to play the system correctly and to delegate and collect.

There is no secret in this and, while the Private Sector turned a blind eye in the good times and employees sought something a little more rewarding where progress was actually an achievable goal (I worked for all of 6 weeks in the Public Sector and it drove me absolutely mad) now that we are essentially paying for the waste and incompetence, it is rightly getting on a lot of people's nerves.

Fact is that everyone knows somebody working in the PS and that's why we are all so bloody angry.

And this is nothing against PS workers themselves. There are always those who are diligent and hardworking regardless, but how many of those are surrounded by ONLY diligent workers in their workplace? The PS system is just far too easy to take advantage of and there will always be those ready to take advantage. From politicians to teachers to guards to doctors. The problem is that the system allows for this and we cannot afford it as a country.

The thing needs an overhaul, big time. And wages need to be brought back in to line with the rest of us first.

Warden13

The Clown Man wrote: »

ardmacha wrote: »

Ah yes, the single transferable anti PS thread.

Have you considered the possibility that the reason there is such an anti-PS theme recently is that because there is merit in it?

Sure, you can micro-analyse individual instances, select defensible situations, argue your point with some degree of merit, but, at the end of the day, we have all sat in a group of Public and Private sector workers together discussing the type of stuff that happens in the Public Sector and not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

The irrefutable and consistent truth is that, one way or another, the type of waste, inefficiencies, procrastination, etc. that happens at all in the PS just does not happen in what we (my group) ironically refer to as "the Real World" where claiming "entitlements" or "working to rule" gets you fired within a week.

In the vast majority of Private Sector jobs you don't have any of the following never mind all at once: a guaranteed pension, a maximum working week, overtime entitlements, mileage or other allowances, 29 days holidays and a guaranteed income for life.

In the Private Sector you don't ever see instances of: 2-3 years maternity leave fully paid, workers who are not at least 80% engaged managing to hold onto their jobs, customer service desks that only open from 10am - 3pm with an hour lunch, performance reviews completely irrelevant at interview time, or anything that simply would not fly in a meritocratic system. There are many, many more examples of things you wouldn't see than can be listed and every PS office has at least one.

Not to mention the basic wages are in general beyond anything comparable in the Private Sector.

That grinds.

And while the PS reps who are the most vocal in their defences are usually the ones that are seen here, in fact, the majority of PS workers with any will to progress despise the way the PS is run and represented. I have 3 family members, my girlfriend, and several friends in the PS, all of whom entered with a drive to succeed and will openly admit that on working for a number of years in a system that rewards laziness and not performance, have resigned to the fact that it is not at all in their best interest to perform in their jobs, but rather to get to know how to play the system correctly and to delegate and collect.

There is no secret in this and, while the Private Sector turned a blind eye in the good times and employees sought something a little more rewarding where progress was actually an achievable goal (I worked for all of 6 weeks in the Public Sector and it drove me absolutely mad) now that we are essentially paying for the waste and incompetence, it is rightly getting on a lot of people's nerves.

Fact is that everyone knows somebody working in the PS and that's why we are all so bloody angry.

And this is nothing against PS workers themselves. There are always those who are diligent and hardworking regardless, but how many of those are surrounded by ONLY diligent workers in their workplace? The PS system is just far too easy to take advantage of and there will always be those ready to take advantage. From politicians to teachers to guards to doctors. The problem is that the system allows for this and we cannot afford it as a country.

The thing needs an overhaul, big time. And wages need to be brought back in to line with the rest of us first.

Hey my real world consists of being spat at attacked stabbed having urine and excrement thrown at me stopping the scum of the earth from killing each other I knew what I was getting into so I am complaining but that's my real world and not having enough money to buy new socks so I can buy glasses for my child but thank Christ this does not happen in your real world

Always number 1

The Clown Man wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that the reason there is such an anti-PS theme recently is that because there is merit in it?

Sure, you can micro-analyse individual instances, select defensible situations, argue your point with some degree of merit, but, at the end of the day, we have all sat in a group of Public and Private sector workers together discussing the type of stuff that happens in the Public Sector and not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

The irrefutable and consistent truth is that, one way or another, the type of waste, inefficiencies, procrastination, etc. that happens at all in the PS just does not happen in what we (my group) ironically refer to as "the Real World" where claiming "entitlements" or "working to rule" gets you fired within a week.

In the vast majority of Private Sector jobs you don't have any of the following never mind all at once: a guaranteed pension, a maximum working week, overtime entitlements, mileage or other allowances, 29 days holidays and a guaranteed income for life.

In the Private Sector you don't ever see instances of: 2-3 years maternity leave fully paid, workers who are not at least 80% engaged managing to hold onto their jobs, customer service desks that only open from 10am - 3pm with an hour lunch, performance reviews completely irrelevant at interview time, or anything that simply would not fly in a meritocratic system. There are many, many more examples of things you wouldn't see than can be listed and every PS office has at least one.

Not to mention the basic wages are in general beyond anything comparable in the Private Sector.

That grinds.

And while the PS reps who are the most vocal in their defences are usually the ones that are seen here, in fact, the majority of PS workers with any will to progress despise the way the PS is run and represented. I have 3 family members, my girlfriend, and several friends in the PS, all of whom entered with a drive to succeed and will openly admit that on working for a number of years in a system that rewards laziness and not performance, have resigned to the fact that it is not at all in their best interest to perform in their jobs, but rather to get to know how to play the system correctly and to delegate and collect.

There is no secret in this and, while the Private Sector turned a blind eye in the good times and employees sought something a little more rewarding where progress was actually an achievable goal (I worked for all of 6 weeks in the Public Sector and it drove me absolutely mad) now that we are essentially paying for the waste and incompetence, it is rightly getting on a lot of people's nerves.

Fact is that everyone knows somebody working in the PS and that's why we are all so bloody angry.

And this is nothing against PS workers themselves. There are always those who are diligent and hardworking regardless, but how many of those are surrounded by ONLY diligent workers in their workplace? The PS system is just far too easy to take advantage of and there will always be those ready to take advantage. From politicians to teachers to guards to doctors. The problem is that the system allows for this and we cannot afford it as a country.

The thing needs an overhaul, big time. And wages need to be brought back in to line with the rest of us first.

Maximum working week? Mileage and other allowances? 2-3 years fully paid maternity leave? Where can I sign up? I have been in the public service the last 7 years and have very rarely operated on a maximum working week. I have often worked above and beyond that and never got a cent in overtime. I have never received a cent of mileage or any other allowance and to suggest 2-3 years fully paid maternity leave? Do public servants have longer pregnancies than those in the private sector? (Could that be considered another entitlement)

While you do make some valid points, your argument starts to stutter when you quote such glaring inaccuracies.

Godge

The Clown Man wrote: »

In the Private Sector you don't ever see instances of: 2-3 years maternity leave fully paid,

.

Let me take just one example from your ill-informed rant and ask you to provide some hard evidence in the form of a circular or union agreement to back up your ignorant statement. Can you show me one piece of evidence other than "I heard it in the pub" or "my girlfriend told me" or "everyone knows" to back up the above part of your post?

I will wait.

Good loser

The Clown Man wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that the reason there is such an anti-PS theme recently is that because there is merit in it?

Sure, you can micro-analyse individual instances, select defensible situations, argue your point with some degree of merit, but, at the end of the day, we have all sat in a group of Public and Private sector workers together discussing the type of stuff that happens in the Public Sector and not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

The irrefutable and consistent truth is that, one way or another, the type of waste, inefficiencies, procrastination, etc. that happens at all in the PS just does not happen in what we (my group) ironically refer to as "the Real World" where claiming "entitlements" or "working to rule" gets you fired within a week.

In the vast majority of Private Sector jobs you don't have any of the following never mind all at once: a guaranteed pension, a maximum working week, overtime entitlements, mileage or other allowances, 29 days holidays and a guaranteed income for life.

In the Private Sector you don't ever see instances of: 2-3 years maternity leave fully paid, workers who are not at least 80% engaged managing to hold onto their jobs, customer service desks that only open from 10am - 3pm with an hour lunch, performance reviews completely irrelevant at interview time, or anything that simply would not fly in a meritocratic system. There are many, many more examples of things you wouldn't see than can be listed and every PS office has at least one.

Not to mention the basic wages are in general beyond anything comparable in the Private Sector.

That grinds.

And while the PS reps who are the most vocal in their defences are usually the ones that are seen here, in fact, the majority of PS workers with any will to progress despise the way the PS is run and represented. I have 3 family members, my girlfriend, and several friends in the PS, all of whom entered with a drive to succeed and will openly admit that on working for a number of years in a system that rewards laziness and not performance, have resigned to the fact that it is not at all in their best interest to perform in their jobs, but rather to get to know how to play the system correctly and to delegate and collect.

There is no secret in this and, while the Private Sector turned a blind eye in the good times and employees sought something a little more rewarding where progress was actually an achievable goal (I worked for all of 6 weeks in the Public Sector and it drove me absolutely mad) now that we are essentially paying for the waste and incompetence, it is rightly getting on a lot of people's nerves.

Fact is that everyone knows somebody working in the PS and that's why we are all so bloody angry.

And this is nothing against PS workers themselves. There are always those who are diligent and hardworking regardless, but how many of those are surrounded by ONLY diligent workers in their workplace? The PS system is just far too easy to take advantage of and there will always be those ready to take advantage. From politicians to teachers to guards to doctors. The problem is that the system allows for this and we cannot afford it as a country.

The thing needs an overhaul, big time. And wages need to be brought back in to line with the rest of us first.

That's an absolutely brilliant post.

You worked for 6 weeks in the public service; I was a lifer for 30 years.

I can confirm - from the inside as it were - that what you observe is spot on or as good as. Definitely a much fairer characterisation of the real public service than the likes of Woodoo and Tayto.

Posters don't have to know the minutiae of wages, reductions in wages, pension levies, pensions etc to know that as a class public servants are still overpaid by 15 - 20%. The budget arithmetic screams this. The employer is seriously broke and continues to pay allowances and increments. Absurd.

As I've written before because a minimum of 25% of public servants in each department do little or nothing imo this cost should be carried by the grade. So comparing with a similar private sector grade the pay could in all fairness be 25% lower.

The December budget will be a gas.

Cookie_Monster

Godge wrote: »

Can you produce any evidence to back this up using pay data for 2012 for new entrants to the public sector?

ah yes, twist the metrics to suit your needs rather than taking account of the majority of PS who are on rates well in excess of new entrants under the new rates...

femur61

Godge wrote: »

Let me take just one example from your ill-informed rant and ask you to provide some hard evidence in the form of a circular or union agreement to back up your ignorant statement. Can you show me one piece of evidence other than "I heard it in the pub" or "my girlfriend told me" or "everyone knows" to back up the above part of your post?

I will wait.

My neighbour and good friend. 4 kids in a row. Will I ask her to post to confirm that.

deise blue

femur61 wrote: »

My neighbour and good friend. 4 kids in a row. Will I ask her to post to confirm that.

So going by the metrics stated by Clown Man of 2-3 years paid maternity leave your neighbour & good friend could have accumulated 8 - 12 years paid maternity leave if of course she planned it right .

I look forward with interest to her illuminating post & perhaps she would also kindly post details of the agreement with her employers that provides such largesse.

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous. There has been a pension levy and pay cuts followed by more pay cuts for new entrants.

You are the one spoofing here, Firstly PS have to make a pension contribution. maybe it has slipped your mind but the Govt has also dipped into private sector pensions and continues to do so.

Secondly they did not receive any pay cut. Instead the Unions/PS decided that new staff would get paid less so they could could keep their wage, allowances and increments at the level they were at.


As an aside does anyone have an idea of how many new entrants have joined the PS since the start of the year?

Warden13 wrote: »

Hey my real world consists of being spat at attacked stabbed having urine and excrement thrown at me stopping the scum of the earth from killing each other I knew what I was getting into so I am complaining but that's my real world and not having enough money to buy new socks so I can buy glasses for my child but thank Christ this does not happen in your real world

It sounds like you are not able for the job. Do you really think it's good for your mental health to be going into a workplace like that every day if this is how you rant on about it here. You have a choice, if you dislike it that much then leave.

From my own experiences most people leave the PS because they can't handle the arcane and archaic work practices, union interference etc. They effectively want to get somewhere in their career without brown nosing or playing the game. Most others I have spoken too are just along for the ride and are aware that they wouldn't in the majority of cases get wages and automatic pay rises outside the PS close to what they are on. You sound like a prime example for the latter, it seems like you really resent your job but you won't do anything about it.

creedp

Good loser wrote: »

That's an absolutely brilliant post.

You worked for 6 weeks in the public service; I was a lifer for 30 years.

I can confirm - from the inside as it were - that what you observe is spot on or as good as. Definitely a much fairer characterisation of the real public service than the likes of Woodoo and Tayto.

Posters don't have to know the minutiae of wages, reductions in wages, pension levies, pensions etc to know that as a class public servants are still overpaid by 15 - 20%. The budget arithmetic screams this. The employer is seriously broke and continues to pay allowances and increments. Absurd.

As I've written before because a minimum of 25% of public servants in each department do little or nothing imo this cost should be carried by the grade. So comparing with a similar private sector grade the pay could in all fairness be 25% lower.

The December budget will be a gas.

Still collecting your gold plated pension from your broke ex-employer - gas!

Scofflaw

This is getting a little heated. Can we dial it down a notch, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

barneystinson

creedp wrote: »

Good loser wrote: »

That's an absolutely brilliant post.

You worked for 6 weeks in the public service; I was a lifer for 30 years.

I can confirm - from the inside as it were - that what you observe is spot on or as good as. Definitely a much fairer characterisation of the real public service than the likes of Woodoo and Tayto.

Posters don't have to know the minutiae of wages, reductions in wages, pension levies, pensions etc to know that as a class public servants are still overpaid by 15 - 20%. The budget arithmetic screams this. The employer is seriously broke and continues to pay allowances and increments. Absurd.

As I've written before because a minimum of 25% of public servants in each department do little or nothing imo this cost should be carried by the grade. So comparing with a similar private sector grade the pay could in all fairness be 25% lower.

The December budget will be a gas.

Still collecting your gold plated pension from your broke ex-employer - gas!

And there's the real elephant in the room, the people who've retired on enormous pensions (the like of which will never be seen again and rightly so), and not shared in the suffering to even a fraction of the extent that either their former PS colleagues or the vast majority of private sector workers have.

The reason the pension levy is what it is? Because an actual pay cut would have affected the pensioners, and we couldn't have that now.

There's a category of very financially comfortable people in this country, who have benefited hugely from the good times (benchmarking, and pension based on final salary rather than career average) and are not being asked to share in the pain, simply because they are "retired" (in some cases in their early 50's).

Just to be clear, I'm in the PS and I believe it's obvious there needs to be further pay cuts and proper performance management has to be imposed - but in a targeted way, not because of some mythical "average" PS worker who earns X% more than the equally elusive "average" private sector worker. And in the course of doing that I believe PS pensioners MUST be made to share the pain too - we've a very generous welfare system if it's needed.

Bits_n_Bobs

The Clown Man wrote: »

customer service desks that only open from 10am - 3pm with an hour lunch

Have you been into a bank recently? I have a definite conspiracy theory in how the PS and Irish Banks manage their 'customer' relations....no doubt at all in my mind that they are in cahoots

ardmacha

Head The Wall wrote:

Secondly they did not receive any pay cut. Instead the Unions/PS decided that new staff would get paid less so they could could keep their wage, allowances and increments at the level they were at..

What is the point of these threads in an allegedly serious forum when people continually post things that they must know to be untrue?

Head The Wall

Have you got a link to back up your assertion.

New entrants have not had a pay cut, they started at a lower gross wage. Godge was trying to call it a paycut when it isn't

The Clown Man

Godge wrote: »

Let me take just one example from your ill-informed rant and ask you to provide some hard evidence in the form of a circular or union agreement to back up your ignorant statement. Can you show me one piece of evidence other than "I heard it in the pub" or "my girlfriend told me" or "everyone knows" to back up the above part of your post?

I will wait.

Are you asking for me to name names?

Each example I gave I have personal experience with. The fact that it can happen means that inevitably, it will happen. I see another poster has mentioned another known example for this specific case. What more do you want?

One of my first lines in my post was that narrowing down to specifics was a common tactic here. Rather than deflect from the central message made in the post, why don't you address the big issue - in every office there are people who take advantage of the system and contribute way less than would be close to acceptable in any Private Sector job. Can you argue that this type of behaviour is not tolerated? And if so, how are these people dealt with?

Good loser wrote: »

a minimum of 25% of public servants in each department do little or nothing imo

I'm not sure if it is 25% across the board and I wouldn't suggest as much but if you have experienced this in your office I wouldn't be enormously suprised. From personal experience I would make it closer to 10% - one or two in every office - but regardless of how anecdotal the evidence, it is foolish to think that this sort of waste does not cost our economy directly and in huge proportion.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see those in the Public Service who work diligently rewarded. We need good people running our public services. However, these people are not rewarded for their efforts as the promotions process completely ignores merit of any kind other than time served. I would also like to see that people who are not contributing sufficiently are shown the door.

Warden13 wrote: »

not having enough money to buy new socks so I can buy glasses for my child

If that is the case I'm sorry for your situation. However, not being able to afford these things on a guards salary seems to me to point to a larger issue. After all, the guards salary is not meagre. I'm guessing that some other financial constraint is the overriding issue here.

Always number 1 wrote: »

Maximum working week? Mileage and other allowances? 2-3 years fully paid maternity leave? Where can I sign up? I have been in the public service the last 7 years and have very rarely operated on a maximum working week. I have often worked above and beyond that and never got a cent in overtime. I have never received a cent of mileage or any other allowance and to suggest 2-3 years fully paid maternity leave? Do public servants have longer pregnancies than those in the private sector? (Could that be considered another entitlement)

You sound like the type of person who should be promoted and rewarded in a working public service. In your experience, does anyone working in your workplace get the same benefits as you (or maybe more based on their willingness to claim benefits which are available to you) and has a far less enthusiastic approach to their job? How many are there? Have you had experience of people recieving promotions within or before your time who were clearly not the best for the job?


What I'm referring to here are not papers and documents but experiences that are widely familiar. If you are a hard-working public servant such as the poster above then it is very much in your best interest to change things up. Effort and aptitude is not rewarded in the PS and laziness and inactivity is not punished to the overall detriment of the entire economy, the public service as a whole, and especially, those who actually want to work.

The Clown Man

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Have you been into a bank recently? I have a definite conspiracy theory in how the PS and Irish Banks manage their 'customer' relations....no doubt at all in my mind that they are in cahoots

Do you mean the banks that are now the public service?

Riskymove

Japer wrote: »

Most people in the private sector earn an awful lot less than that,

ah, the return of Jimmmynomics

"most" people in the PS also earn less than the average PS wage, as tends to be the case with an average, given the range of salaries paid

K-9

Head The Wall wrote: »

Have you got a link to back up your assertion.

New entrants have not had a pay cut, they started at a lower gross wage. Godge was trying to call it a paycut when it isn't

Are you trying to say a lower gross pay is not a pay cut?

Welease

K-9 wrote: »

Are you trying to say a lower gross pay is not a pay cut?

If people are going to use logic that states an increment is not a pay increase.. then sure why not...

Daft logic aside, how can pay be cut if you don't work there? They are signing a new contract on an amount they would appear happy to work for.. granted they may be unhappy their colleagues get paid more, but that is what the current PS workers, unions and government have decided is the appropriate change (I don't personally agree).

itzme

K-9 wrote: »

Are you trying to say a lower gross pay is not a pay cut?

I think what Head the Wall is implying is the person starting the job hasn't had a pay cut as they were never in receipt of a wage.
However, the pay for that position in the PS has had it's pay cut.

Geuze

Analysis of the public-private pay gap published today by the CSO:

http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleasenationalemploymentsurvey2009and2010supplementaryanalysis/

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2010/nes_0910supp.pdf

Lumbo

Welease wrote: »

If people are going to use logic that states an increment is not a pay increase.. then sure why not...

Daft logic aside, how can pay be cut if you don't work there? They are signing a new contract on an amount they would appear happy to work for.. granted they may be unhappy their colleagues get paid more, but that is what the current PS workers, unions and government have decided is the appropriate change (I don't personally agree).

The Unions objected to this but couldn't do anything about it. It was a goverment led decision.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2011/0416/ireland/new-teachers-face-extra-4-cut-in-pay-union-claims-151636.html

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/trade-union-campaigns-are-young-teachers-only-light-in-these-dark-days-3255535.html

BTW I don't agree with it either. Any reductions in salary should be across the board and shared by current serving Public Servants.

Head The Wall

K-9 wrote: »

Are you trying to say a lower gross pay is not a pay cut?

Jesus, I didn't realise it would need to be broken down to such a simple level for people to understand.

New entrant starts on 25K, they are still now on 25k unless they have gained an increment. I don't see any pay cut there, you do realise a paycut happens when your gross wage is cut from what it was "previously"

K-9

itzme wrote: »

I think what Head the Wall is implying is the person starting the job hasn't had a pay cut as they were never in receipt of a wage.
However, the pay for that position in the PS has had it's pay cut.

I suppose if people want to be picky about it. Its a saving in the pay bill which is all that really matters, other than petty semantics which I do know some love.

K-9

Head The Wall wrote: »

Jesus, I didn't realise it would need to be broken down to such a simple level for people to understand.

New entrant starts on 25K, they are still now on 25k unless they have gained an increment. I don't see any pay cut there, you do realise a paycut happens when your gross wage is cut from what it was "previously"

Its a cut to the pay bill and I'm happy enough with that. I know some will never be happy when it comes to public sector pay.

Head The Wall

Geuze wrote: »

Analysis of the public-private pay gap published today by the CSO:

http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleasenationalemploymentsurvey2009and2010supplementaryanalysis/

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2010/nes_0910supp.pdf

Only 2.6% of the PS claim to be managers and administration. Why so few when according to other PS there's too many of them and they are too well paid?

I also don't see this great disparity between education levels which is used to explain the massive average wage difference. The PS also has it's fair share of people that don't even have a leaving cert 16%

Head The Wall

K-9 wrote: »

Its a cut to the pay bill and I'm happy enough with that. I know some will never be happy when it comes to public sector pay.

We're not discussing the overall pay bill here

sarumite

K-9 wrote: »

Are you trying to say a lower gross pay is not a pay cut?

It can't be described as a pay cut since a pay cut is not allowed under the terms of the CPA.

sarumite

K-9 wrote: »

Its a cut to the pay bill and I'm happy enough with that. I know some will never be happy when it comes to public sector pay.

I am one of those who is not happy. Personally it is a cut to the pay bill that should be reversed. If it is the same job, same level of experience, same government department, there should be the same salary.

K-9

Head The Wall wrote: »

We're not discussing the overall pay bill here

Yeah, we are discussing increments so why are you posting about cuts in new entrants pay?

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

I also don't see this great disparity between education levels which is used to explain the massive average wage difference. The PS also has it's fair share of people that don't even have a leaving cert 16%

tbf I think that argument is about people with higher qualifications

New entrant starts on 25K, they are still now on 25k unless they have gained an increment. I don't see any pay cut there, you do realise a paycut happens when your gross wage is cut from what it was "previously"

well you could also say that the new entrant is earning less than what they would have if the pay scales had not been reduced. Yes the individual has not had a reduction in pay but more of a notional pay cut in terms of a saving

Only 2.6% of the PS claim to be managers and administration

Managers and "senior" administration so more of a connection to top level management I'd say

other people in professional and sales etc can also "manage staff"

Head The Wall

The report has the median average on page 18. I know people here have often claimed that the average was not very accurate and the median would be more representative.

Interestingly the Median is actually showing a greater difference than the average

2010 Median average pay difference is 38.7%
2010 Average pay is 35%

Also from the Conclusion

The data was also modelled using quantile regression. These results showed that the 2009 pay gap was highest at
the lower end of the earnings distribution and, in general, decreased as earnings increased.

It's the "so called lower paid" in the PS that are actually the most overpaid compared to relevant roles in the Private sector. This is an area that needs to be focused on especially considering the thousands of unnecessary admin staff in the HSE that continue to get paid an inflated wage.

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

The report has the median average on page 18. I know people here have often claimed that the average was not very accurate and the median would be more representative.

not so sure about that 0 I think the average is pretty accurate - I think the problem is how its presented (by some) as a wage earned by the majority

The median is an interesting figure but not really any better in terms of the arguments about pay - half the PS earn less than it and half earn morn than it, does not really give us any more than that



on a seprate note, the differentials for pay to women is eye-opening. Is this due to the more likely equal treatment in pay in the PS I wonder?

Riskymove

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's the "so called lower paid" in the PS that are actually the most overpaid compared to relevant roles in the Private sector. This is an area that needs to be focused on

definitely one of the elephants in the room

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

on a seprate note, the differentials for pay to women is eye-opening. Is this due to the more likely equal treatment in pay in the PS I wonder?

I'm not 100% sure it's the case but unless increments only count time spent on the job, any woman who's taking maternity leave and or parental leave is going to be far better off on an incremental salary scale than one where raises are based on experience in the job and productivity*.

*I'm not saying they'll necessarily be less productive when in the job but their productivity over the same length of service will be less than that of a man or woman who hasn't taken that leave.

Riskymove

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure it's the case but unless increments only count time spent on the job, any woman who's taking maternity leave and or parental leave is going to be far better off on an incremental salary scale than one where raises are based on experience in the job and productivity*.

well, in the PS, payscales are not connected to gender, men and women get paid the same at all levels, increments not withstanding, so that must be part of it

I'd agree women have more options in terms of working arrangements and also full pay maternity leave that many in private sector don't

Sleepy

The lack of opportunity to negotiate for salary probably impacts but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that, ceterus paribus, a woman who's taken maternity leave and another who hasn't receiving the same salary is equality of pay. It's either under-paying the woman with more experience and productivity or over-paying the person with less.

Riskymove

Sleepy wrote: »

The lack of opportunity to negotiate for salary probably impacts but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that, ceterus paribus, a woman who's taken maternity leave and another who hasn't receiving the same salary is equality of pay. It's either under-paying the woman with more experience and productivity or over-paying the person with less.

maternity leave isn't mentioned in the report and many women in both Public and private will not have taken maternity leave in any given year so how much of a factor it is is not demonstrated

ednwireland

Riskymove wrote: »

definitely one of the elephants in the room

there seems to be so many elephants in the room it makes you wonder where they have this giant room

Sleepy

Riskymove wrote: »

maternity leave isn't mentioned in the report and many women in both Public and private will not have taken maternity leave in any given year so how much of a factor it is is not demonstrated

It's not mentioned in the report but it surely must be an underlying factor in the massive disparity between the pay gap for men versus women when the majority of women have at least one child in their working lives.

If Public and Private sectors treat those women differently, we can expect it to be a fairly factor for the disparity in their earnings.

Godge

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure it's the case but unless increments only count time spent on the job, any woman who's taking maternity leave and or parental leave is going to be far better off on an incremental salary scale than one where raises are based on experience in the job and productivity*.

*I'm not saying they'll necessarily be less productive when in the job but their productivity over the same length of service will be less than that of a man or woman who hasn't taken that leave.

Increments do not count on career break which more women take.
Increments do not count on parental leave which more women take.
Not sure of the position of maternity leave.

The overwhelming suggestion from the CSO data is that private sector employers get away with exploiting women and taking advantage of them as much as they can (it is the ugly side of the profit motive).

The fact that the public service treats women better is a factor in explaining the pay differential between the public sector and private sector.

If it is the case that the premium for public sector pay could be largely eliminated by exploiting women in the public sector as much as they are exploited in the private sector, is that a road we wish to go down?

Stheno

Godge wrote: »

Increments do not count on career break which more women take.
Increments do not count on parental leave which more women take.
Not sure of the position of maternity leave.

The overwhelming suggestion from the CSO data is that private sector employers get away with exploiting women and taking advantage of them as much as they can (it is the ugly side of the profit motive).

The fact that the public service treats women better is a factor in explaining the pay differential between the public sector and private sector.

If it is the case that the premium for public sector pay could be largely eliminated by exploiting women in the public sector as much as they are exploited in the private sector, is that a road we wish to go down?

Could another factor also be that low paying jobs such as cleaning etc are in the private and not the public sector as the public sector have outsourced a lot of those roles?

Sleepy

Checked it out:

hr.per.gov.ie wrote:

Q. Does maternity leave affect my entitlement to increments?
A. No. Your entitlement to an increment is unaffected by taking maternity leave (whether paid or unpaid) and your incremental date stays the same.

So, one could argue just as validly that the Public Sector is actively discriminating against men and women that haven't taken maternity leave by paying them the same rates as colleagues with less experience.

And since a premium also exists for male workers, it's pretty clear that while adjusting the increments system to exclude time spent on maternity leave might deal with some of the over-payment, it's not likely to largely eliminate the current premium for public sector pay.