CSO report on public-private pay gap

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.

Farmer Pudsey

woodoo wrote: »

From the report:

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)

There is no comparrison betwen the semi states and private companies most are over paid and over staffed. Not that I am a huge fan of privatisation of utilities although in the case of refuse collection it made little difference.

You could compare the wages in Board Gais/ESB with private utilities Eircom/Vodaphone/Meteor/O2 and use staffing level in eircom/Vodaphone/Eircell pre/post privitation as comparissons

fliball123

ardmacha wrote: »

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

Well if the comparison is inaccurate as a measure of the differentiation between public and private why bother look at it..It needs to factor in everything in order to get a proper comparison

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

There is no comparrison betwen the semi states and private companies most are over paid and over staffed. Not that I am a huge fan of privatisation of utilities although in the case of refuse collection it made little difference.

You could compare the wages in Board Gais/ESB with private utilities Eircom/Vodaphone/Meteor/O2 and use staffing level in eircom/Vodaphone/Eircell pre/post privitation as comparissons

Very valid comparisons of course and Im sure they would throw up interesting differences. However, the point being made is that average semi-state salaries are high compared to average ps salaries and are therefore inflating the overall ps average wage. However, when cuts were introduced for public sector wages the semi-states wages were excluded from these cuts and will also be excluded from any future cuts. It would therefore be more directly comparable to remove semi-state salaries from the overall ps average salary before deciding what gap exists between public and private pay rates.

Its a bit much to be screaming that public pay rates are 50% higher when they contain salaries which cannot be impacted on by ps pay cuts. In addition, maybe hospitality pay should be removed from the average private salary calculation as this sector significantly reduces the overall average private sector salary. In fact people were concerned about low pay in the private sector, they should be supporting a campaign to improve salary leves for this sector. For those who can crunch the numbers it would be interesting to see what the pay 'average' gap would be if those adjustments were made.

Farmer Pudsey

creedp wrote: »

In addition, maybe hospitality pay should be removed from the average private salary calculation as this sector significantly reduces the overall average private sector salary. In fact people were concerned about low pay in the private sector, they should be supporting a campaign to improve salary leves for this sector. For those who can crunch the numbers it would be interesting to see what the pay 'average' gap would be if those adjustments were made.

Maybe we should also provide matrix'es for private sector where workers have often to be on different worksites (not just in construction) which impact on there travel and work cost not all reimbursed by the employer. Yes in an Ideal world we would like to see pay improve in low paid sections of the private sector but would this impact on employment rates. It is not as simplistic as starting a campaign to improve pay in low pay area's in the private sector.The hospitality sector is part of the tourism sector which has been decimated by high cost and has lost compeditive prices to other holiday destinations.

ballyharpat

If you take the weekly pay comparisons, I can find people in the same company as me doing the same job that get 50% less than me, I work 45 hours, someone else works 30 hours, let's say I get e10 per hour, that's 450 per week, they get 300, the figures are skewed if someone says I get paid 50% more than them, I work 50% more than them and get the same per hour, someone doing my job in the Public sector gets 50% more than me and more allowances/benefits/sick pay/pension.

How do I know this? Because my mother does the same work as me and gets paid 50% more.......

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.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Well if the comparison is inaccurate as a measure of the differentiation between public and private why bother look at it..It needs to factor in everything in order to get a proper comparison

CSO reports were good enough when the figures suited your argument, now that they dont suit your agenda, the CSO reports are rubbish Talk about double standards, and they say TD's have one rule for them and one rule for others

ballyharpat wrote: »

If you take the weekly pay comparisons, I can find people in the same company as me doing the same job that get 50% less than me, I work 45 hours, someone else works 30 hours, let's say I get e10 per hour, that's 450 per week, they get 300, the figures are skewed if someone says I get paid 50% more than them, I work 50% more than them and get the same per hour, someone doing my job in the Public sector gets 50% more than me and more allowances/benefits/sick pay/pension.

How do I know this? Because my mother does the same work as me and gets paid 50% more.......

Im sorry, but i call BS without some sort of job title outlined at the least to compare.
This is where some narrow minded people fail, they assume all PS people get allowances and benefits.

someone doing my job in the Private sector gets 50% more than me and more allowances/benefits/sick pay/pension.

How do I know this? Because my mate does the same work as me and gets paid 50% more

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

CSO reports were good enough when the figures suited your argument, now that they dont suit your agenda, the CSO reports are rubbish Talk about double standards, and they say TD's have one rule for them and one rule for others

This report still even when not taking the increments, pensions, allowences still shows overpayment by the median and average as being somewhere between 20 and 40% in differing areas...what argument are you talking about is it the one were we are borrowing 2.5 million an hour to pay for this madness....The same body also stated that in countries where the public sector is paid vastly more than its private sector counter parts are as follows Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain...Now what else do these countries have in common???

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain...Now what else do these countries have in common???

we all have a chance at qualification for Brazil 2014?

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

we all have a chance at qualification for Brazil 2014?

Yeah they also are up to their t1ts in debt due to over borrowing for the day to day running of their countries and are all in the middle or will soon to be in a bailout program..its time to start joining the dots...The Public sector should be getting paid less than the private sector as they get a bullet proof and very attractive pension and security in their job, something that if you put a price on would seriously skew this report. Look at Germany, France and other countries that are not in the mire..

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

they get a bullet proof and very attractive pension and security in their job

Why not cancel PS pensions and give the contributions back to the staff to look after themselves? It would mean a bigger take home pay for PS staff though, and that would kill the boards.ie faithful PS staff will still get the state pension then they can use their contributions and levy to fund their lifestyle or to bump up the state pension.

Are you forgetting that the state pension is built into the PS pension? Are you forgetting that PS staff pay contributions to their pension on top of the PRSI for the state pension?

ballyharpat

You can call anything you like, I am a HCA, I get paid e12 per hour, e2 extra on a sunday. My Mother gets e18 per hour, don't know that rate for Sunday, but it's a lot more than me.
And I am one of the better paid carers in the private sector, a lot of them only get minimum wage to e10 per hour.

Are you happy now????? ANd to add to that, I get 20 min on average per resident, my mother gets 30-40, and in that time I have to shower them twice a week, in the Public sector they don't......

Now please point out where that happens in a reverse as you are so smart in pointing out in your post??
Im sorry, but i call BS without some sort of job title outlined at the least to compare.
This is where some narrow minded people fail, they assume all PS people get allowances and benefits.

someone doing my job in the Private sector gets 50% more than me and more allowances/benefits/sick pay/pension.

How do I know this? Because my mate does the same work as me and gets paid 50% more[/QUOTE]

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

Why not cancel PS pensions and give the contributions back to the staff to look after themselves? It would mean a bigger take home pay for PS staff though, and that would kill the boards.ie faithful PS staff will still get the state pension then they can use their contributions and levy to fund their lifestyle or to bump up the state pension.

Are you forgetting that the state pension is built into the PS pension? Are you forgetting that PS staff pay contributions to their pension on top of the PRSI for the state pension?

What you mean the pensions levy?...yeah I would be all for that ... but do you think that what the ps currently pay will cover the current ps employees pensions...answer not in a million years..it will have to be subsidised by the tax payer..Thats a known fact and there is a clusterfcuk of a pensions problem coming down the road in about 10/15 years...They have already dipped into the private pension pot...I dont think there will be many of the ps who would want what your suggesting..I do know there are some in the ps that would be better off doing this but not a large %

ardmacha

They have already dipped into the private pension pot..

Not as much as they have dipped into the national pension reserve fund.

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

What you mean the pensions levy?...

Pension Levy and Pension Contributions.
You do realise PS pay both of these dont you?

fliball123 wrote: »

but do you think that what the ps currently pay will cover the current ps employees pensions...answer not in a million years..it will have to be subsidised by the tax payer..Thats a known fact and there is a clusterfcuk of a pensions problem coming down the road in about 10/15 years...They have already dipped into the private pension pot...I dont think there will be many of the ps who would want what your suggesting..I do know there are some in the ps that would be better off doing this but not a large %

The high earners, no it wouldnt, i agree with you there. But anybody in and around the middle income/average may be better off with their own funds.
Lets be honest here, when i retire at 65, the lump sum if im still there and still applicable will not be as important as a regular income, so i'd gladly reduce payments in now to reduce the lump sum.

My weekly payment includes the state pension, so its only the balance that i have to fund, which i could easily manage with my own saving tbh.

Gumbo

ballyharpat wrote: »

And to add to that, I get 20 min on average per resident, my mother gets 30-40, and in that time I have to shower them twice a week, in the Public sector they don't......

Would you rather 30 mins with each patient?
Is the PS system in this instance better than the private system?

Does your boss/owner rush you through patients in order maximise people care and profits?

I personally would rather be looked after by a PS HCA as they get to spend that little bit more time with the patient rathert than in out thank you mam.

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

Pension Levy and Pension Contributions.
You do realise PS pay both of these dont you?



The high earners, no it wouldnt, i agree with you there. But anybody in and around the middle income/average may be better off with their own funds.
Lets be honest here, when i retire at 65, the lump sum if im still there and still applicable will not be as important as a regular income, so i'd gladly reduce payments in now to reduce the lump sum.

My weekly payment includes the state pension, so its only the balance that i have to fund, which i could easily manage with my own saving tbh.

So can the private sector take back their prsi as well then...Once again with what the ps are payin in both do you think that for the majority of current PS workers will it cover what they will get in their pensions..and the answer is no. who makes up the short fall ....the tax payer. But I am in agreement that pensions should from here on be taken away from PS let them pay PRSI like the private sector and be entitled to the OAP and if they want to top it up let them do so it would save billions in the future

Gumbo

fliball123 wrote: »

So can the private sector take back their prsi as well then...Once again with what the ps are payin in both do you think that for the majority of current PS workers will it cover what they will get in their pensions..and the answer is no. who makes up the short fall ....the tax payer. But I am in agreement that pensions should from here on be taken away from PS let them pay PRSI like the private sector and be entitled to the OAP and if they want to top it up let them do so it would save billions in the future

Hang on a minute here, then you would have to give the PS back their PRSI as you are aware that they pay that too??? Are you seriously unaware that PS staff pay PRSI, pension contributions and pension levy???????

I purposely left out the state pension as both private and public receive this for paying PRSI.
And ps staff are entitled to the COAP, it's built into their ps pension. Seriously do you even know why your ranting?

My ps pension contributions would cover my pension and I and many many others would give up the ps pension tomorrow if we had the chance.

fliball123

kceire wrote: »

Hang on a minute here, then you would have to give the PS back their PRSI as you are aware that they pay that too??? Are you seriously unaware that PS staff pay PRSI, pension contributions and pension levy???????

I purposely left out the state pension as both private and public receive this for paying PRSI.
And ps staff are entitled to the COAP, it's built into their ps pension. Seriously do you even know why your ranting?

My ps pension contributions would cover my pension and I and many many others would give up the ps pension tomorrow if we had the chance.

Where did I say that you didnt pay prsi or pension contributions. The private sector pay PRSI in orde to pay for the OAP. Where have I ranted? I only said that this report does not take into account the last number of years annual increments , allowances or the number of hours worked or pensions. I just stated that if any comparison was to be done it would have to be on the whole of what the ps get in comparison to the private sector. I never ranted or at least I didnt intentionally try to come across like that. Also as for you covering your pension grand I just wish that 100% of ps who will garnish a pension would be like you but unfortunately thats not the case.

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

I just wish that 100% of ps who will garnish a pension would be like you but unfortunately thats not the case.

with the reforms in place since 1995, more and more will fall into this category

I only said that this report does not take into account the last number of years annual increments , allowances or the number of hours worked or pensions.

The report is about what surveyed people were paid in 2009 and 2010 and nothing more

it is not about our current deficit or cost of PS pay bill and it doesn't claim to be either!

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

with the reforms in place since 1995, more and more will fall into this category



The report is about what surveyed people were paid in 2009 and 2010 and nothing more

it is not about our current deficit or cost of PS pay bill and it doesn't claim to be either!

I never disputed this...I just said that if we want an accurate analysis of the differential between both sectors ... All perks, allowances, increments and pensions in both sectors should be taken into account as each have a monetary value.