CSO report on public-private pay gap

cosbloodymick

Head The Wall wrote: »

Yes that's because they also didn't include any private sector pension contributions in the calculations. You know, so they can do equal comparisons.

Thankyou for supporting my initial contribution to this debate.
The private sector employee gets a state pension which would cost 250,000 to buy. The Public Sector worker does not.
This anomaly is never addressed when comparing public and private sector remuneration.

ardmacha

I do think I'm fair and balanced, but I just think a tough private sector view point scares the bejesus out of public sector people and they can't get their head around it

yeah right. Lets introduce tough AIB style sanctions for bad decision making into the Bomb squad, the result would be massive loss of life.

cosbloodymick

[Jackass] wrote: »

Hold on a second and rewind, we're still on the point of inflated wages and that's where the propping up by the tax payer is coming in. It's hardly offensive, just a fact.

I work in the Public Sector and my wages are far from inflated.

Put it this way, if everything was privatised (which obviously I'm not suggesting it should be) and where applicable competition was introduced, what do you think would happen to staffing levels, pay rates and efficiency in the public sector? I'll give you a clue, two of them would fall dramatically and one of them would rise dramatically.

In the private sector if business is increasing, staffing levels and wages rise. In the public sector the opposite happens.

That's the bottom line. There should be no sense of being owed a living. This is a dog eat dog world and being wrapped up in cotton wool and put on a pay scale with little or no incentive to be either productive nor efficient just means we (you and I as tax payers) are being ripped off...

I don't feel anyone owes me a living. I work hard for my salary.

If you ran your own business for example, I think you would suddenly become a lot less charitable towards peoples god given entitlements (or merely percieved) and a lot more aware of the bottom line...

I don't accept charity from anyone!


Maybe we're from two different worlds, maybe that's why there's such a gap between perspectives on each side of the table here - one side seems to think it should be about security and being looked after and the other side thinks it should be all about the bottom line and earning....

What makes you think Public sector workers do not earn their wages?

I do think I'm fair and balanced, but I just think a tough private sector view point scares the bejesus out of public sector people and they can't get their head around it....like I said, two different worlds...

Does not scare me at all. I have worked in both public and private sectors.
I can see things from both viewpoints. I would wager that the public service bashers have only seen one side of the coin!

not yet

Can anyone confirm that banking sector workers are not included in this report.

I this is so then the figures are even closer then the report states.

Tipp Man

Godge wrote: »

All company directors are classed as self-employed. That is what you meant by director?

Only if they are majority shareholders of the company

Edit: or it could be voting rights - either way the directors of the vast vast majority of multi national and foreign companies in Ireland are not self employed

srsly78

Yes but lots of high-earning "professionals" are, like accountants, lawyers, doctors, consultants etc operating through their own small company. These people operate as paye employees of their company, but own a large stake and thus count as "proprietary directors" = self-employed.

Tipp Man

srsly78 wrote: »

Yes but lots of high-earning "professionals" are, like accountants, lawyers, doctors, consultants etc operating through their own small company. These people operate as paye employees of their company, but own a large stake and thus count as "proprietary directors" = self-employed.

the original post about directors and my subsequent post clearly states directors of large and multi national companies

Gumbo

[Jackass] wrote: »

Hold on a second and rewind, we're still on the point of inflated wages and that's where the propping up by the tax payer is coming in. It's hardly offensive, just a fact.

Put it this way, if everything was privatised (which obviously I'm not suggesting it should be) and where applicable competition was introduced, what do you think would happen to staffing levels, pay rates and efficiency in the public sector? I'll give you a clue, two of them would fall dramatically and one of them would rise dramatically.

That's the bottom line. There should be no sense of being owed a living. This is a dog eat dog world and being wrapped up in cotton wool and put on a pay scale with little or no incentive to be either productive nor efficient just means we (you and I as tax payers) are being ripped off...

If you ran your own business for example, I think you would suddenly become a lot less charitable towards peoples god given entitlements (or merely percieved) and a lot more aware of the bottom line...

Maybe we're from two different worlds, maybe that's why there's such a gap between perspectives on each side of the table here - one side seems to think it should be about security and being looked after and the other side thinks it should be all about the bottom line and earning....

I do think I'm fair and balanced, but I just think a tough private sector view point scares the bejesus out of public sector people and they can't get their head around it....like I said, two different worlds...

Pretty much the same upbringing as myself. Father is self employed and 2 of my brothers are self employed, all running their own small business, so i know how tough it is. I spent my whole life working in the private sector, until 2009, where i joined the PS where i remain today.

I have seen the argument from both sides too

but you didnt answer my question, what Fat Pension are you talking about? Are you saying the average PS employee gets a fat pension or are you talking about the TD's and senior Civil Servants?

[Jackass] wrote: »

Put it this way, if everything was privatised (which obviously I'm not suggesting it should be) and where applicable competition was introduced, what do you think would happen to staffing levels, pay rates and efficiency in the public sector? I'll give you a clue, two of them would fall dramatically and one of them would rise dramatically.

Yes, just like Waste Collection......
People screamed for Dublin City Council to give up their grip on waste collection and for it to be privatised. When it happened, service dropped and cost to the public rised. People in my estate are now kicking themselves they belittled council staff for years and would swap back to DCC in a heart beat.

not yet

kceire wrote: »

Pretty much the same upbringing as myself. Father is self employed and 2 of my brothers are self employed, all running their own small business, so i know how tough it is. I spent my whole life working in the private sector, until 2009, where i joined the PS where i remain today.

I have seen the argument from both sides too

but you didnt answer my question, what Fat Pension are you talking about? Are you saying the average PS employee gets a fat pension or are you talking about the TD's and senior Civil Servants?



Yes, just like Waste Collection......
People screamed for Dublin City Council to give up their grip on waste collection and for it to be privatised. When it happened, service dropped and cost to the public rised. People in my estate are now kicking themselves they belittled council staff for years and would swap back to DCC in a heart beat.

The only people to gain from private enterprise is big business and the people who run it, Services run by the state or local councils would be much different in private hands, people can spout all they like about how the they would like services to be run by big business but the only thing that would happen is every employee would work foe minimum wage and shareholders and company directors would be the only ones to benefit. Do we really want a Ireland inc or a decent place to live.

not yet

The only ones to benefit from private enterprise are shareholders and company directors, If that's the country we want then so be it, I don't..I prefer a country that my children can work in a be paid a decent wage rather then line the pockets of big business.

barneystinson

not yet wrote: »

The only ones to benefit from private enterprise are shareholders and company directors, If that's the country we want then so be it, I don't..I prefer a country that my children can work in a be paid a decent wage rather then line the pockets of big business.

You and your children should try and engage in private enterprise, aka wealth creation, then shouldn't ye... start a business or buy some shares.

Specialisation and division of labour is what created the world we know today, unless you'd rather we were all still picking ticks off each others' fur?

Or should all "enterprise" be State run? - An ideology which I thought had been tried and found sorely wanting at this stage...

Riskymove

[Jackass] wrote: »

As above, the higher end has no equivalent, where as there are many people doing the same job in the public and private sector on minimum wage so it is a relevant comparison, ...

well I am not so sure

my point is that there is a large part of the private sector in low paid serivces industry that tends to skew the average private sector wage

rather than looking at the totality, if you look at a sector like "finanial services" or "ICT" you will see a much higher wage than the overall wage. Therefore the attempt to compare the average wage of one group of 300,000 to another of 1m is pretty meaningless to me. Far more focussed comparisons are required to really identify the wage gap at different levels.


You also mention the median gap as some sort of significant figure. I assume that is because it is a wider gap and you think it backs up your position. However, I don't believe a comparison of the two medians mean much either:

if there are say, 300,001 PS then the median is the person in the middle, i.e. 150,000 people earn more and 150,000 earn less

likewise in a private sector of say, 1m there are 500,000 paid more and 500,000 paid less

what does a comaprison really mean? There is a reason that the reports findings don't make any great play about the gap in the median. If there really as a 38% wage gap in the findings, don't you think they would refer to it?

not yet

barneystinson wrote: »

You and your children should try and engage in private enterprise, aka wealth creation, then shouldn't ye... start a business or buy some shares.

Specialisation and division of labour is what created the world we know today, unless you'd rather we were all still picking ticks off each others' fur?

Or should all "enterprise" be State run? - An ideology which I thought had been tried and found sorely wanting at this stage...

\
Stunning insight into the logic of greed.....

Sleepy

kceire wrote: »

Yes, just like Waste Collection......
People screamed for Dublin City Council to give up their grip on waste collection and for it to be privatised. When it happened, service dropped and cost to the public rised. People in my estate are now kicking themselves they belittled council staff for years and would swap back to DCC in a heart beat.

Only those who went with Greyhound I'm guessing...

We found the Council's chosen provider to be shysters (they'd already been making a hames of our waste collection whilst sub-contracted to DCC for months at the point DCC sold them our personal information) so we switched to Oxygen and have to say have found a markedly different level of service to that which we were provided by DCC both before and after they contracted Greyhound.

Forget to leave the bins out? They've knocked in and asked if we forgot to put them out. Lashing rain and some moron has blocked the entrance to the estate, they've walked in, pulled the bins to the truck and returned them to the driveway after emptying them.

And that service is costing us the grand total of €20 a month, about two thirds of what DCC were charging.

Privatisation of waste collection is a good thing, DCC just made a balls of it.

EDIT: 15,000th post? I need some more hobbies!

Sleepy

not yet wrote: »

\
Stunning insight into the logic of greed.....

Which is greedier? Believing that those who take the risk to start a business deserve to be compensated for that? Or believing it's acceptable to leave future generations bankrupt in order to over-compensate some state workers?

Gumbo

Sleepy wrote: »

Only those who went with Greyhound I'm guessing...

We found the Council's chosen provider to be shysters (they'd already been making a hames of our waste collection whilst sub-contracted to DCC for months at the point DCC sold them our personal information) so we switched to Oxygen and have to say have found a markedly different level of service to that which we were provided by DCC both before and after they contracted Greyhound.

Forget to leave the bins out? They've knocked in and asked if we forgot to put them out. Lashing rain and some moron has blocked the entrance to the estate, they've walked in, pulled the bins to the truck and returned them to the driveway after emptying them.

And that service is costing us the grand total of €20 a month, about two thirds of what DCC were charging.

Privatisation of waste collection is a good thing, DCC just made a balls of it.

Just goes to show the difference, Oxygen service my estate too
Similar pricing to me, but if the bin is not out, no knock, if the bin is on the path and not on the road then its not picked up.
bins left down the end of the street after emptying.

some days the bins are not collected between the aloocated time, and when we take them in and ring up in the evening they say they were there later.

creedp

Sleepy wrote: »

Which is greedier? Believing that those who take the risk to start a business deserve to be compensated for that? Or believing it's acceptable to leave future generations bankrupt in order to over-compensate some state workers?

Yawn ... private good, public bad. The End

not yet

Sleepy wrote: »

Which is greedier? Believing that those who take the risk to start a business deserve to be compensated for that? Or believing it's acceptable to leave future generations bankrupt in order to over-compensate some state workers?

Just look at what the banks acheived when let loose, How many companies in just the past 5 years have gone bankrupt whithout paying VAT,,TAX redundancy etc etc,while shuffling monies into accounts or as Mick Wallace done awarding himself a 100k pay rise the year before his company went bust.
We only have to look at the greed of Sean Quinn to see what happens when these people are left to regulate themselves. I of course understand that small business is the driving force behind our economy all I'm saying is some employers would have people working for minimum wage whilst living a life far,far beyond their employees.

HerrKuehn

Why is the difference between average public sector pay and average private sector pay in Ireland so large? In the UK it is 8.2% according to this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17521020. Surely the UK would have similar differences in skills between public and private. Can anyone explain this? Where does the premium in Ireland come from?

not yet

HerrKuehn wrote: »

Why is the difference between average public sector pay and average private sector pay in Ireland so large? In the UK it is 8.2% according to this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17521020. Surely the UK would have similar differences in skills between public and private. Can anyone explain this? Where does the premium in Ireland come from?

Yeah why oh why.........

check the latest CSO report on this it's not as big as people would have you believe, or are you trolling.

hyperborean

Geuze wrote: »

CSO study of the pay gap published today:

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


Press release:

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


Main findings:


Overall, the summary results show that, on average, public sector employees had higher educational attainment, longer service, were older, and were more likely to be in professional jobs than their counterparts in the private sector.

• The multivariate analysis provided a range of estimates of the public/private pay gap. The range of estimates provided reflect the fact that there is no unanimity in the international literature regarding the most appropriate model/parameters to use and as such no single best measure exists and to present one would be subjective and prone to over simplification. The pay gap estimates ranged from 6.1% to 18.9% for NES 2010 and all estimates showed a reduction in the pay gap between 2009 and 2010.

People often mention a 50% pay premium, which is clearly wrong. Now we know that it's more like 6-18%, depending how it's measured.

NB: the analysis does not take into account the second PS pay cut (PRD). This was about 6-8%.

So the pay premium is now about 0-10%.

What group provided the public sector data for this? And were can I see it?

Gumbo

hyperborean wrote: »

What group provided the public sector data for this? And were can I see it?

http://www.cso.ie/en/

What group provided the private sector data for this? And were can I see it?

not yet

kceire wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/en/

What group provided the private sector data for this? And were can I see it?

Well whatever group it was it certainly wasn't the high paid banking sector for some strange reason.

hyperborean

kceire wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/en/

What group provided the private sector data for this? And were can I see it?

Well played, I agree with everything you say :-)

Again defensive and effectively ignoring questions to suit your agenda?

Gumbo

hyperborean wrote: »

Well played, I agree with everything you say :-)

Again defensive and effectively ignoring questions to suit your agenda?

the facts are there, if it doesnt suit your agenda, then dont blame others.

martingriff

hyperborean wrote: »

Well played, I agree with everything you say :-)

Again defensive and effectively ignoring questions to suit your agenda?

Are you saying that the public sector wages given are wrong that the CSO have somehow been LIED to. Could the private sector wages also be wrong or they been LIED to. By the way here is a thread done with all the info.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78426787

see post 3

hyperborean

martingriff wrote: »

Are you saying that the public sector wages given are wrong that the CSO have somehow been LIED to. Could the private sector wages also be wrong or they been LIED to. By the way here is a thread done with all the info.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78426787

see post 3

Again with the defensiveness, the pay scales are nothing to do with reality as they dont reflect actual pay of individuals in the PS, as incriments and allowances are staunchly protected both in information on them and how they are/were benchmarked.

kceire wrote:

the facts are there, if it doesnt suit your agenda, then dont blame others.

The reality is that the figure in the report are a patchwork of analysis techniques designed to twart any real analysis of PS pay and allowances verses the real world.

PS report for PS agenda.

You still havent answered my frst question, who gave the CSO the data on pay in the PS?

Riskymove

hyperborean wrote: »

PS report for PS agenda.

?

these kind of reports have been used to bash the PS for the last few years!

why do you think it suits a PS agenda?

You still havent answered my frst question, who gave the CSO the data on pay in the PS?

here is where data came from:

The National Employment Survey
The NES 2009 was a major workplace survey conducted by the CSO. The survey covered both the public and private sectors, the only excluded sectors being agriculture, forestry and fishing. The purpose of the NES was to provide structural information on workplace issues, including earnings and factors influencing earnings. Information was collected in a linked and integrated way from a sample of employers and employees. For more detailed information see the CSO’s NES 2008 and 2009 Publication and Background

Notes.
Overall the number of respondent employees was equivalent to 4.5% of all relevant employees. The respondent enterprises represented approximately 5.5% of all enterprises. The data provided from employers and employees were then weighted to compensate for differing sampling fractions, non response and to gross up to the overall population.Non response rates were higher in the smaller size classes.

martingriff

hyperborean wrote: »

Again with the defensiveness, the pay scales are nothing to do with reality as they dont reflect actual pay of individuals in the PS, as incriments and allowances are staunchly protected both in information on them and how they are/were benchmarked.



The reality is that the figure in the report are a patchwork of analysis techniques designed to twart any real analysis of PS pay and allowances verses the real world.

PS report for PS agenda.

You still havent answered my frst question, who gave the CSO the data on pay in the PS?

Not been defensive just asking why you dont delieve them. The wages are there to see they are very visible. I dont get what you are saying in the highlighted section. Are you saying that the wages in the links i give you don't give people wages.

Geuze

CSO data is robust and independent - there is no "agenda".

Riskymove

hyperborean wrote: »

as incriments and allowances are staunchly protected both in information on them and how they are/were benchmarked.

incremental pay scales are all fully available, once you know someones grade you can see what they earn

the benchmarking body reported (both times) on its decisions

Farmer Pudsey

[FONT=SymbolMT]

 [/FONT]Apart from differences in personal characteristics between public
and private sector employees, there are also differences in
occupations between the two sectors. For example it is not
possible to match Gardaí, prison officers or members of the
defence forces with equivalent jobs in the private sector.
Similarly, occupations such as those associated with sales are not
found in the public sector. This analysis does not attempt to match
jobs across the sectors.

 The above table summarises the key estimates from the NES.
These estimates are based on the weighted data.

 The average public service weekly earnings were €872.16 in 2009,
compared with €645.56 in the private sector; over 35% higher.

 The corresponding pay gap for hourly earnings was almost 49%,
with hourly earnings in the public sector at €29.09 and €19.53 in
the private sector.

 The average pay differential for male hourly earnings was 47.1%
(€31.79 in the public sector compared with €21.61 in the private
sector) and for females it was 59.8% (€27.58 in the public sector
compared with €17.26 in the private sector).

 Public sector earnings were on average 13.2% higher for males
than for females, compared with 20.1% higher in the private sector.

 Employees in the private sector worked on average a longer week
than those in the public sector. The average number of hours
worked per week in the public sector was 31 hours compared with

32.7 hours in the private sector.


I went through the document and alot was gobbly gook above is the summeries of it findings. Alot of posters are highlighting the fact that public service staff have higher quilifications yet only about 3% describe them selves as managers in the private sector this is about 20% this must employ that thousnds of staff in the public service are over qualified for there jobs no reason to over pay them as well in the private sector you cannot stay in a well paid cushy position and know that you will be looked after. It also may lead to an assumption that mid level managers in the PS do not consider them selves managers and do not complete this fuction which is the backbone of private entreprise.

In private sector the most important ability is not your education quailifcation but your ability to do the job. Yes there are area's where certain educational qualifications are important however the ability to get the job done is also important this is not a prequisite in the public service.

The hourly rates are higher the working hours are lower and this is weekly! It fails to mention holidays and also it used matrix's in the public service for occasions where it considered hours hard to define ie teaching/3rdlevel.

TBH you would wonder after reading it if they first got the answers and then worked back to qualify them.

Sleepy

I think the more interesting statistic would be "relevant" degree qualifications. The vast majority of PS staff I'd know that work in admin positions would have a degree of some sort but most would be "interest" degrees like BA's in Archaeology, Sociology & Politics, Irish, Womens Studies, History, English, Psychology etc. All worthy subjects of study no doubt but of little or no use to them in processing waivers etc.

ardmacha

Alot of posters are highlighting the fact that public service staff have higher quilifications yet only about 3% describe them selves as managers in the private sector this is about 20% this must employ that thousnds of staff in the public service are over qualified for there jobs no reason to over pay them as well in the private sector you cannot stay in a well paid cushy position and know that you will be looked after.

Te public service has large numbers of doctors, lecturers, engineers etc who are well educated, but who don't necessarily manage anyone.

Sleepy

Before I get jumped on over it, it's almost certainly true of large numbers of admin staff in the private sector too... admin workers tend to make up less of the headcount in that sector though.

Gumbo

hyperborean wrote: »

Again with the defensiveness, the pay scales are nothing to do with reality as they dont reflect actual pay of individuals in the PS, as incriments and allowances are staunchly protected both in information on them and how they are/were benchmarked.



The reality is that the figure in the report are a patchwork of analysis techniques designed to twart any real analysis of PS pay and allowances verses the real world.

PS report for PS agenda.

You still havent answered my frst question, who gave the CSO the data on pay in the PS?

Have no idea what your on about
If you take some time to read through the many many pages on this forum, you'll see that CSO data is used each and every time to highlight PS pay. If you done accept that, then theres nothing anybody can do about that im afraid.

Is it because it doesnt suit your agenda?
Is it because the facts now say that PS pay is lower than posted on these forums?

God knows

not yet

Just a thought on the matter............

A nurse needs to have a leaving cert, Attend college for 3-4 years, put in the first year on the job for nothing, yes NOTHING.

Something similar for Garda, 1 YEAR in templemore on 80e a week.

Firemen similar, on top of all this these people are constantly reviewed, constantly under pressure, work nights, work weekends, holidays, christmas etc....

It makes me want to puke when you here people talk about overpaid, lazy PS workers. Oh and the ordinary joe soap working in council offices, court clerks, cleaners, porters most of which are on a wage that they just get by on.

One more thing, when a PS retires on the ''golden'' pension, the state pension is means tested against this which means the may receive 90-100e per week if even that.

Sleepy

not yet, you're talking nonsense.

Gardaí and Nurses are well paid (and should be imo). The ordinary Joe Soap working in council offices etc. are precisely those who are over-paid: they would be paid less in the private sector for doing similar jobs. Some are lazy, some are stellar workers who may even deserve pay raises but the union system of pay scales prevents them from being paid more as they have to subsidise the lazy colleagues at the same point of the scale as them. That's the price of collective bargaining: the best get paid the same as the worst.

Now the facts:

1. We don't take in enough taxes to pay our current public sector wage bill
2. There is no way we can raise taxes enough to balance the books (doing so would simply push huge numbers of us who are currently working onto the welfare bill as we'd be better off on the dole and there aren't enough mega earners to cover the gap with taxes on those earning over 100k/250k and if we tried, those we have may well leave).
3. Banking debt doesn't matter for this conversation. Even if we reneged on the lot, we'd still be running a massive deficit.

So, what's your solution?

Should we scrap welfare? "Just" cut it to the point where it can pay all the public sector workers their current salaries and next year's increments? Bearing in mind that the document we're discussing in this thread confirms that PS workers are paid more than their private sector counterparts, sure, some are spinning it that they're not paid as much more as people were claiming but the fact remains they're over-paid).

Or should we do the sensible thing and cut welfare a bit, increase non-income taxes a bit, and cut public sector salaries (and/or numbers) a bit.

antoobrien

not yet wrote: »

Just a thought on the matter............

A nurse needs to have a leaving cert, Attend college for 3-4 years, put in the first year on the job for nothing, yes NOTHING.

That's not true, the plans to introduce the 0 pay for student nurses doesn't happen until 2015. In that regard they are the same as many interns in the private sector that also don't get paid (yes it does happen, not just in job bridge)

not yet wrote: »

Something similar for Garda, 1 YEAR in templemore on 80e a week.

Aw the poor dears, getting housed, fed and clothed and only getting €80 pocket money.

not yet wrote: »

Firemen similar, on top of all this these people are constantly reviewed, constantly under pressure, work nights, work weekends, holidays, christmas etc....

Come work in IT, the same applies. The only difference is that we don't have to run into burning buildings.

not yet wrote: »

It makes me want to puke when you here people talk about overpaid, lazy PS workers. Oh and the ordinary joe soap working in council offices, court clerks, cleaners, porters most of which are on a wage that they just get by on.

What the ordinary joe soap that gets an allowance to answer the phone when on reception etc.

not yet wrote: »

One more thing, when a PS retires on the ''golden'' pension, the state pension is means tested against this which means the may receive 90-100e per week if even that.

May receive 90-100 per week? How long service does this notional ps retiree have on the lowest possible grade?

beeno67

No body seems to have noticed this report shows public sector workers earn almost 50% more than private sector. They just work less hours so the differential does not appear to be as great.

Also are allowances included?

woodoo

beeno67 wrote: »

No body seems to have noticed this report shows public sector workers earn almost 50% more than private sector. They just work less hours so the differential does not appear to be as great.

Also are allowances included?

Show us where is says 50%

Japer

woodoo wrote: »

Show us where is says 50%

if you read the statisticdsv you will be aware its close to 50%.

Its shameful and ridiculous how the public sector are paid and pensioned so much in Ireland, at the expense of everyone else.

martingriff

Japer wrote: »

if you read the statisticdsv you will be aware its close to 50%.

Its shameful and ridiculous how the public sector are paid and pensioned so much in Ireland, at the expense of everyone else.

Read it at nowhere does it show that please point it out

Gumbo

Japer wrote: »

if you read the statisticdsv you will be aware its close to 50%.

Its shameful and ridiculous how the public sector are paid and pensioned so much in Ireland, at the expense of everyone else.

Where does it say that jimmmy?

Farmer Pudsey

martingriff wrote: »

Read it at nowhere does it show that please point it out

kceire wrote: »

Where does it say that jimmmy?

The average pay differential for male hourly earnings was 47.1%
(€31.79 in the public sector compared with €21.61 in the private
sector) and for females it was 59.8% (€27.58 in the public sector
compared with €17.26 in the private sector).

You should read all the report not just the headlines

Gumbo

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The average pay differential for male hourly earnings was 47.1%
(€31.79 in the public sector compared with €21.61 in the private
sector) and for females it was 59.8% (€27.58 in the public sector
compared with €17.26 in the private sector).

You should read all the report not just the headlines

Excellent, thanks.

woodoo

beeno67 wrote: »

No body seems to have noticed this report shows public sector workers earn almost 50% more than private sector. They just work less hours so the differential does not appear to be as great.

Also are allowances included?

Thats the 2009 figures, in 2010 its less and it doesn't take the pension levy into account or weigh for education when you compare by hours. I'll stick to the weekly pay comparisons. They are what really matters.

woodoo

From the report:

Public Sector
The Public Sector includes:
 Civil Service;
 Defence Forces;
 Garda Síochána;
 Local Authorities;
 Education (excluding private institutions)
 Regional Bodies
 Health (excluding private institutions)
 Semi-State Bodies (excluding their subsidiary companies)

They can take that out for a start, the semi states are not public service, they are untouchable. No paycut in 2010 or pension levy. The government has no way of getting at their wages.

Look what happens when the semi states are included with the private sector (whick they basically are anyway)

C.4 OLS Regression estimates of the Public Sector Wage gaps: NES 2009, 2010
*
Commercial Semi State Sectors included with the Private Sector
Permanent, Full‐time employees aged 25‐59  
Males & Females
Year  
Weighted Unweighted
Including Size Excluding Size Including Size Excluding Size
Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value
2009 10.8% 19.73 17.2% 31.51 10.5% 18.45 15.5% 27.84
2010 6.7% 9.29     14.1% 19.82     5.1% 7.08     10.8% 15.23
                                 
   Males
Year  
Weighted Unweighted
Including Size Excluding Size Including Size Excluding Size
Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value
2009 10.2% 12.28 16.0% 19.17 8.2% 9.85 12.9% 15.6
2010 4.1% 3.93     11.6% 10.97     2.7% 2.59     8.2% 7.99
                                 
   Females
Year  
Weighted Unweighted
Including Size Excluding Size Including Size Excluding Size
Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value Pay gap t‐value
2009 10.7% 14.73 18.6% 25.81 12.1% 16.08 18.3% 24.61
2010 9.7% 9.7     17.6% 18.07     7.7% 7.69     14.1% 14.39

It would be much fairer and more accurate if it was divided into Public v Private v Semi State

fliball123

woodoo wrote: »

Thats the 2009 figures, in 2010 its less and it doesn't take the pension levy into account or weigh for education when you compare by hours. I'll stick to the weekly pay comparisons. They are what really matters.

Nor does it that the 3/4 bouts of increments...Once again its a shoddy comparison. It needs to be done on an hourly basis with holidays, overtime, allowances and pensions all included otherwise any comparison is redundant and not worth talking about

ardmacha

It needs to be done on an hourly basis with holidays, overtime, allowances and pensions all included otherwise any comparison is redundant and not worth talking about

I look forward to you and your fellow travellers not talking about it then.