Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

ardmacha

For example, using this criteria the public sector pension bill is significantly more expensive than would be otherwise considered since it attracts little tax.

It is not more expensive, it is merely not discounted as much.

However, public pensions are systematically overstated also as most persons employed before '95 do not receive the old age pension, and these are most of the people retiring now. If the public pensions were like private ones then the bill would be one third less. Oddly enough the high quality journalists in the Irish media never seem to notice this.

sharper

ardmacha wrote: »

However, public pensions are systematically overstated also as most persons employed before '95 do not receive the old age pension, and these are most of the people retiring now.

Pre-95 civil servants pay PSRI at a significantly reduced rate, consequently they are not entitled to full PRSI benefits.

If the public pensions were like private ones then the bill would be one third less. Oddly enough the high quality journalists in the Irish media never seem to notice this.

Private workers pay full PRSI consequently they are entitled to full PRSI benefits.

The reason they don't "notice" your distinction is that it's misleading and wrong.

ardmacha

Private workers pay full PRSI consequently they are entitled to full PRSI benefits.

This is the why, not the what. The why is not the point.

The reason they don't "notice" your distinction is that it's misleading and wrong.

The reason they "notice" my distinction
1. they are lazy and have low professional standards
2. they like to pander to PS haters

sharper

ardmacha wrote: »

This is the why, not the what. The why is not the point

The why renders your point meaningless. People that do not pay PRSI do not get PRSI benefits whether they are public or private sector workers.

Please have a little bit of respect for the intelligence of the readers of this forum.

creedp

sharper wrote: »

The why renders your point meaningless. People that do not pay PRSI do not get PRSI benefits whether they are public or private sector workers.

Please have a little bit of respect for the intelligence of the readers of this forum.

Post 95 PS pay full PRSI but their defined benefit pension includes the contributory pension, i.e. if they receive a €30k pension, €12k relates to the contributoy OAP which all workers (incl private sector workers) are entitled to and €28k is their defined benefit occupational pension. This has been explained ad nauseum at this point but it doesn't seem to matter.

skafish

sharper wrote: »

Clearly public servants have whatever entitlements they obtain from their employment contract and other agreements.

Unfortunately, the government dont agree with this

Godge

sharper wrote: »

Ok let's imagine there's only two individuals involved here, one private sector paying €4k in tax and one public servant being paid 10k gross, 5k net.

The private sector guy pays his tax and lodges it in the revenue's account. They have now received 4k in tax and their balance is +4k.

They now pay the public sector guy his salary. They pay him the 4k from the income tax account + 1k borrowed, the other 5k doesn't really exist but is assigned as tax revenue anyway. The revenue bank account is at 0k even though income is marked +5k.

In other words tax income is not 9k, it is 4k because 5k of it does not exist and cannot ever be spent on anything.

If the government wants to spend that 5k it has to borrow it. Otherwise it just doesn't exist.

Going back again to the consistency argument, if you want to use public sector pay minus direct taxes you'll have to reduce income tax, GNP and GDP by the same amount when calculating taxable income, otherwise you're talking about taxing non-existant money.

Also again I'm happy to explore whatever set of criteria so long as it's applied consistently and used appropriately. It's not at all reasonable to apply special sets of criteria to subsets of government activity and then compare it elsewhere using different criteria.

For example, using this criteria the public sector pension bill is significantly more expensive than would be otherwise considered since it attracts little tax.

You really don't get it.

Have you ever heard of the futiity of consistency? You can count out the distance from here to France in millimetres and take years to do it which is pointless but using millimetres to see if a small thing fits is a good thing.

You are at the same thing. You want the same measurements and ground rules no matter what is being discussed but they are not always appropriate.

Maura74

Wow, wish that scheme was available in UK, but no such luck, however the public section in UK are lazy and some of them get generous holidays and guarantee pensions as well as generous sick pay, unlike the private sector.

I know some large multinationals give their employee a career break but that is unpaid with the proviso of maybe not getting the same job you left when they return to work. Also you have to be employed with the company for at least 2 years before you can get the benefit if any career breaks and it certainly unpaid.

sarumite

Maura74 wrote: »

Wow, wish that scheme was available in UK, but no such luck, however the public section in UK are lazy and some of them get generous holidays and guarantee pensions as well as generous sick pay, unlike the private sector.

You can't make a sweeping ignorant statement like that and expect to be taken seriously.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

You can count out the distance from here to France in millimetres and take years to do it which is pointless but using millimeters to see if a small thing fits is a good thing.

If you measure the distance to France in millimeters and the distance to the moon in kilometers you cannot compare them directly without converting them so they're consistent with each other you certainly cannot say "It's more millimeters to France than kilometers to the moon, therefore the moon is closer"

You are at the same thing. You want the same measurements and ground rules no matter what is being discussed but they are not always appropriate.

I want the same criteria applied when comparing two things, it's that simple.

Your argument is "If you deduct something from public sector pay and not from anything else then public sector pay is less". That's just not useful of sensible.

sharper

creedp wrote: »

Post 95 PS pay full PRSI

Yes. What does that have to do with pre-95 public sector workers?

ardmacha

If you deduct something from public sector pay and not from anything else then public sector pay is less".

As I said, by all means produce statistics showing other public expenditure less PAYE, PRSI, Pension levy, Pension contribution deducted at source, when the government does not need the cash to fund the gross amount of the expenditure.

We welcome data here.

sharper

ardmacha wrote: »

As I said, by all means produce statistics showing other public expenditure less PAYE, PRSI, Pension levy, Pension contribution deducted at source, when the government does not need the cash to fund the gross amount of the expenditure.

Firstly I am not making the claim that public sector pay is cheaper under criteria other than the gross pay criteria.

Secondly choosing direct taxation only as the deduction criteria is clear cherry picking in order to reach a preordained conclusion.

ardmacha

Secondly choosing direct taxation only as the deduction criteria is clear cherry picking in order to reach a preordained conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with supporting a point by identifying relevant calculations. If you feel that the point is not valid then refute it, by proposing your own calculations, preferably more persuasive ones than you've managed so far.

sharper

ardmacha wrote: »

If you feel that the point is not valid then refute it, by proposing your own calculations, preferably more persuasive ones than you've managed so far.

I have pointed out a flaw in your calculations which demonstrates they're not reflective of the true cost of various types of government spending. I have made no claims regarding what the answer would be if the correct criteria are concluded therefore I need provide no calculation to support that claim.

You and others have made claim after claim in relation to the public sector pay and what you can deduct from it to make it appear cheaper. You all balk at the notion you're then required to make consistent comparisons.

Gryire

Maura74 wrote: »

Wow, wish that scheme was available in UK, but no such luck, however the public section in UK are lazy and some of them get generous holidays and guarantee pensions as well as generous sick pay, unlike the private sector.

I know some large multinationals give their employee a career break but that is unpaid with the proviso of maybe not getting the same job you left when they return to work. Also you have to be employed with the company for at least 2 years before you can get the benefit if any career breaks and it certainly unpaid.

It has been well established that we have the most highly paid Public Service in the world with the best pension entitlements / sick pay arrangements / holidays / working hours. That is why any job that becomes available is oversubscribed 10 times over. The people in the PS are doing their best to preserve what they have regardless of the costs to the Private Sector. What is wrong with this! They should be entitled to try and keep their excellent terms and conditions. It is up to government to change these but this will not hapoen. All that is going to happen is a bit of musical chairs and take out of one pocket and put it back into the other pocket. Remember the negotiations that have been going on are between the Public Service unions and the Public Service higher management. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

It has been well established that we have the most highly paid Public Service in the world with the best pension entitlements / sick pay arrangements / holidays / working hours. That is why any job that becomes available is oversubscribed 10 times over. The people in the PS are doing their best to preserve what they have regardless of the costs to the Private Sector. What is wrong with this! They should be entitled to try and keep their excellent terms and conditions. It is up to government to change these but this will not hapoen. All that is going to happen is a bit of musical chairs and take out of one pocket and put it back into the other pocket. Remember the negotiations that have been going on are between the Public Service unions and the Public Service higher management. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!

Has is it been well established and if so where?

According to the OECD...."Middle managers, economists/policy analysts [my bit] and executive secretaries in the Irish public service receive total compensation that is quite close to the OECD average"

The required working week (34.75 hours) is lower than the OECD average, but that's the 'required working week' - the actual hours worked are different and I for one will definitely not work more than the required working week when this deal goes through - if salary is being linked to hours worked instead of job done, then the employer can have the hours paid for, and no more.

I also remember that up until late 2009 we had severe trouble recruiting and retaining staff. I remember more than once being laughed at in an interview when we told people what the starting salaries were, and we had plenty of people start but not even finish their first week - the record was held by one guy who started on Monday morning, go a call about another job and left by 10-30 without even the courtesy of telling anyone he was going!

The idea that the PS is a 'good' job has really only gained traction in the last 3/4 years up until then you were regarded almost as some kind of incompetent idiot who couldn't function anywhere else if you were inclined towards working in a job where service, rather than profit, was core value.




EDIT:- In 2009, clerical staff were paid below the OECD average - I can't imagine their situation has changed much in he wake of the various pay cuts that have been introduced since then.

Gryire

Jawgap wrote: »

Has is it been well established and if so where?

According to the OECD...."Middle managers, economists/policy analysts [my bit] and executive secretaries in the Irish public service receive total compensation that is quite close to the OECD average"

The required working week (34.75 hours) is lower than the OECD average, but that's the 'required working week' - the actual hours worked are different and I for one will definitely not work more than the required working week when this deal goes through - if salary is being linked to hours worked instead of job done, then the employer can have the hours paid for, and no more.

I also remember that up until late 2009 we had severe trouble recruiting and retaining staff. I remember more than once being laughed at in an interview when we told people what the starting salaries were, and we had plenty of people start but not even finish their first week - the record was held by one guy who started on Monday morning, go a call about another job and left by 10-30 without even the courtesy of telling anyone he was going!

The idea that the PS is a 'good' job has really only gained traction in the last 3/4 years up until then you were regarded almost as some kind of incompetent idiot who couldn't function anywhere else if you were inclined towards working in a job where service, rather than profit, was core value.

There is no one debating the the hours worked in the PS are less than the required of 34.75.

I am not sure what positions/salaries you are referring to in your reference to 2009 but if you want to elaborate, please do.

I am not sure what you mean about the idea that the PS is a 'good' job. It is not a 'good' job. It is a boring job suited to certain type of people. I think you will find how you were regarded in 2009 and has not changed in the current environment.

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

It has been well established that we have the most highly paid Public Service in the world with the best pension entitlements / sick pay arrangements / holidays / working hours. That is why any job that becomes available is oversubscribed 10 times over. The people in the PS are doing their best to preserve what they have regardless of the costs to the Private Sector. What is wrong with this! They should be entitled to try and keep their excellent terms and conditions. It is up to government to change these but this will not hapoen. All that is going to happen is a bit of musical chairs and take out of one pocket and put it back into the other pocket. Remember the negotiations that have been going on are between the Public Service unions and the Public Service higher management. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!

Same old rhetoric .. anyone would think that PS had not had their pay cut, other terms and conditions reduced, numbers cut, etc over the last 4 years.

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean about the idea that the PS is a 'good' job. It is not a 'good' job. It is a boring job suited to certain type of people. I think you will find how you were regarded in 2009 and has not changed in the current environment.

Chr1st there's a sweeping generalisation for you!

Gryire

creedp wrote: »

Chr1st there's a sweeping generalisation for you!

The 'you' is the one referred to by 'Jawgap'

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

There is no one debating the the hours worked in the PS are less than the required of 34.75.

I am not sure what positions/salaries you are referring to in your reference to 2009 but if you want to elaborate, please do.

I am not sure what you mean about the idea that the PS is a 'good' job. It is not a 'good' job. It is a boring job suited to certain type of people. I think you will find how you were regarded in 2009 and has not changed in the current environment.

You can read the links to see which jobs / positions are being referred to.

You seem not to have much concept of what goes on in the PS - it's as interesting as you want it to be; and given that three times in the last 7 years I've been approached about returing to the private sector (the last time was last September) - I think I know exactly how I'm perceived.

These public servants seem to have less than boring jobs....

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

The 'you' is the one referred to by 'Jawgap'

I'll rephrase as obviously I've caused confusion .. Chr1st there's a sweepng generalisation if there ever was one!

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

The 'you' is the one referred to by 'Jawgap'

To quote Churchill......



".....eh?"

Gryire

Jawgap wrote: »

You can read the links to see which jobs / positions are being referred to.

You seem not to have much concept of what goes on in the PS - it's as interesting as you want it to be; and given that three times in the last 7 years I've been approached about returing to the private sector (the last time was last September) - I think I know exactly how I'm perceived.

These public servants seem to have less than boring jobs....

I know a awful lot about the PS and if you read my original post, you might have picked up that I think the unions are dead right to defend the working conditions. There is no need to be embarrassed about having a cushy job with good salary and pension.

I doubt that the private sector could match your terms and conditions!!!!

It is not a good idea to use an exception to get a point across.

creedp

Gryire wrote: »

It is not a good idea to use an exception to get a point across.

Its even less of a good idea to use a unsubstantiated sweeping generalisation for thesame purpose.

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

I know a awful lot about the PS and if you read my original post, you might have picked up that I think the unions are dead right to defend the working conditions. There is no need to be embarrassed about having a cushy job with good salary and pension.

I doubt that the private sector could match your terms and conditions!!!!

It is not a good idea to use an exception to get a point across.

More non-boring PS jobs





By the way the deal my potnetial employer was offering far exceeded what I'm getting in the PS - they were offering the same salary, an expensed car, private medical for me and the family etc.

The kicker though was that they know I'm a keen cyclist so I was offered - instead of a golf club, sports club or gym subscription - a bike to the value of about €3k!!

I know from working for the firm in question before I'd be well looked after in return for putting the hours in, but as I've said before - it's more fun being a gamekeeper than a poacher!

sharper

Jawgap wrote: »

I know from working for the firm in question before I'd be well looked after in return for putting the hours in, but as I've said before - it's more fun being a gamekeeper than a poacher!

From an employer perspective, why should you be paid more than what you're willing to do the job for? You clearly have other more lucrative options which you don't avail of because you like where you are, so why should your pay and conditions not reflect that?

Jawgap

sharper wrote: »

From an employer perspective, why should you be paid more than what you're willing to do the job for? You clearly have other more lucrative options which you don't avail of because you like where you are, so why should your pay and conditions not reflect that?

Because that's not how it works - the market dictates what the salaries and benefits packages are, that's why footballers earn in a week what nurses earn in five years.

I like the job I have for two reasons which a private employers can't match. First, it's interesting being at the centre and I'd rather be making the rules than be bound by them.

Secondly, I've done my business travelling and I like not having to bounce all aound the place at the beck and call of clients. In my own particular area, if I returned to the private sector I'd be spending a lot more time in the UK; I like sleeping in my own bed.

Head The Wall

So you would have got paid more to do a different job i.e not a valid comparison

Vizzy

Jawgap wrote: »

The kicker though was that they know I'm a keen cyclist so I was offered - instead of a golf club, sports club or gym subscription - a bike to the value of about €3k!!

Meh- wouldn't even get you the wheels on one of Astrmonti's creations:):)

sharper

Jawgap wrote: »

Because that's not how it works - the market dictates what the salaries and benefits packages are, that's why footballers earn in a week what nurses earn in five years.

The market pays the minimum people are willing to do the job for. You're very clearly willing to do the job for less because of some factor that attracts you to it. There's nothing wrong with that but you're obviously in no way "stuck" in your current position so I'm not at all clear what the basis of your complaint is - if you want to earn more money you can but you have to sacrifice something else to do it. People have to make these choices all the time.

In the IT industry compare something like enterprise applications to games development. The latter is objectively more difficult and more stressful yet pays less. This is because people want to work in the games industry and they're willing to sacrifice pay, terms and conditions in order to do so.

You prefer being a gamekeeper to a poacher which is again fine but your preference doesn't come for free. If you're no longer willing to do the job maybe someone places even more value on being a gamekeeper than you and is willing.

Jawgap

sharper wrote: »

The market pays the minimum people are willing to do the job for. You're very clearly willing to do the job for less because of some factor that attracts you to it. There's nothing wrong with that but you're obviously in no way "stuck" in your current position so I'm not at all clear what the basis of your complaint is - if you want to earn more money you can but you have to sacrifice something else to do it. People have to make these choices all the time.

In the IT industry compare something like enterprise applications to games development. The latter is objectively more difficult and more stressful yet pays less. This is because people want to work in the games industry and they're willing to sacrifice pay, terms and conditions in order to do so.

You prefer being a gamekeeper to a poacher which is again fine but your preference doesn't come for free. If you're no longer willing to do the job maybe someone places even more value on being a gamekeeper than you and is willing.

I think if you read back you'll see I'm not against the pay cuts, what I am against is the unfair way with which they are being dealt with and implemented - and the total lack of acknowledgement of other income reduction initiatives in the PS.

The market pays what people think they can get away asking for, it doesn't always end up at the minimum - the minimum I'm willing to work for and the minimum a prospective employer is willing to pay can be very different figures - if an employer offers me more than my minimum, I'm hardly likely to say, "you're grand, I'll do it for 10k less!"

And I know I'm as 'stuck' as I want to be - and I'm lucky in the sense that many of my colleagues in the PS lack the opportunities to move that I do.

As for trade-offs, I've pretty much made them - my current plan is to pare back by working hours to minimum required under the revised deal, then take the extra time and use that to take on some additional project work (in the UK) - again not an option available to everyone, but it's better than passively accepting the cuts.

sharper

Jawgap wrote: »

The market pays what people think they can get away asking for, it doesn't always end up at the minimum - the minimum I'm willing to work for and the minimum a prospective employer is willing to pay can be very different figures - if an employer offers me more than my minimum, I'm hardly likely to say, "you're grand, I'll do it for 10k less!"

I'm not saying the jobs market provides a 100% efficient transaction every time but nevertheless the principle holds true and on average it works out that way like in my games industry example.

Any of the private sector organisations you join may well find themselves in difficulty in a few years and your terms and conditions will change again, then you'll have to decide whether to stick it out or find something better.

Gryire

Jawgap wrote: »

I think if you read back you'll see I'm not against the pay cuts, what I am against is the unfair way with which they are being dealt with and implemented - and the total lack of acknowledgement of other income reduction initiatives in the PS.

The market pays what people think they can get away asking for, it doesn't always end up at the minimum - the minimum I'm willing to work for and the minimum a prospective employer is willing to pay can be very different figures - if an employer offers me more than my minimum, I'm hardly likely to say, "you're grand, I'll do it for 10k less!"

And I know I'm as 'stuck' as I want to be - and I'm lucky in the sense that many of my colleagues in the PS lack the opportunities to move that I do.

As for trade-offs, I've pretty much made them - my current plan is to pare back by working hours to minimum required under the revised deal, then take the extra time and use that to take on some additional project work (in the UK) - again not an option available to everyone, but it's better than passively accepting the cuts.

I hope you are going to pay tax on the additional work !!!!!!!!

Jawgap

Gryire wrote: »

I hope you are going to pay tax on the additional work !!!!!!!!

I sure am - it's being organised through a consultancy so they'll make the necessary deductions. However, it'll be going to HM Revenue rather than here.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

.

Your argument is "If you deduct something from public sector pay and not from anything else then public sector pay is less". That's just not useful of sensible.

I will thank you not to repeat my arguments, especially in quotations, when you have repeatedly demonstrated (most clearly in the above post) that you do not understand the arguments.

Godge

sharper wrote: »

Secondly choosing direct taxation only as the deduction criteria is clear cherry picking in order to reach a preordained conclusion.

No it is not.

Indirect taxation applies to all expenditure resulting from government transfers in a fairly equal fashion. In fact, given that VAT rates that apply to luxury goods are higher, you can argue that VAT is a progressive tax. Even if the higher-paid save money, that is subject to DIRT. As against that some would argue that as lower-paid and social welfare spend more on everyday items and not on travel abroad, there is some opposite trends. Then again, expenditure in the black market is higher the lower your income. An assumption that indirect tax applies equally for the purposes of comparison is a valid one given those factors. Certainly it is clear that the measurement issues would not justify trying to calculate for it as the likely outcome would be not significant in the greater scheme of things.

On the other hand, direct taxation is both easily measurable and differentially applied. The marginal tax rate on unemployment benefit is 0%, meaning the government gets nothing back. The marginal tax rate for public servants (inclusive of superannuation and pension-related pay deduction) is over 60%, as previously shown on this thread.

So, to conclude, the analysis above suggests that a comparison net of direct taxes is valid.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

I will thank you not to repeat my arguments, especially in quotations, when you have repeatedly demonstrated (most clearly in the above post) that you do not understand the arguments.

The use of paraphrase is perfectly acceptable. The curious might wonder why you chose to abandon your own argument to become offended by it.

sharper

Godge wrote: »

Indirect taxation applies to all expenditure resulting from government transfers in a fairly equal fashion.

You state this and then go on talk about factors that make it unequal.

People that are genuinely interested in the effects of cutting different types of government spending follow all available avenues to understand it. People that are really only interested in trying to justify something they've already decided pick criteria that suits them and then refuse to budge from it.

woodoo

Jawgap wrote: »

EDIT:- In 2009, clerical staff were paid below the OECD average - I can't imagine their situation has changed much in he wake of the various pay cuts that have been introduced since then.

Thats very interesting about the Clerical Officer data. A lot of the anti PS people on here have been telling is they are vastly overpaid by European standards. The best paid public service in the world we often hear.

skafish

Gryire wrote: »

There is no one debating the the hours worked in the PS are less than the required of 34.75.

I am not sure what positions/salaries you are referring to in your reference to 2009 but if you want to elaborate, please do.

I am not sure what you mean about the idea that the PS is a 'good' job. It is not a 'good' job. It is a boring job suited to certain type of people. I think you will find how you were regarded in 2009 and has not changed in the current environment.

WTF?

I for one, have yet to encounter anybody in the PS who works less than 34.75 hours a week, even those who are lucky enough to employed for so few hours. Personally, before the new rape of my terms and conditions, I am contracted to work 41 hours, but usually end up working more than that without pay. Please support your outrageous claim with some data.

Can you also explain what you regard as boring about the role of, for example, a nurse, or an air traffic controler?
Or what criteria you apply to "certain type of people"? This remark borders on racism.

noodler

The Clerical Officer thing requires more views.

But lets remember that we need only concern ourselves with the blue bars (i.e. ignore the social contributions by the employer and overtime).

The figures are also adjusted for Purchasing Price Parity...I'd love to see their workings as well.

Even after all that, we still pay clerical officers a fair whack more than they do in Britain - our largest trading partner.

Its also worth noting that clerical officer is one of the few public service jobs I can think of which requires no college degree and accounts for a very small percentage of total public service jobs.



Also this point

The following points should also be noted in regard to data provided for the Republic
of Ireland:
1.
The amount shown take into account the decrease of th
e salaries following the
Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 (the public
service pension deduction).

So they have decided to deduct the pension levy which will skew the figures. I also wonder if Neri have done the necessary research to see if there have been calls since 2009 in the countries surveyed to see if they have had larger pension contributions/levies as a result of the crisis.

I also wonder if the 50% of final salary pension clerical officers get is replicated across the countries surveyed.

jamaamaj

Well about time the irish Government grew some balls and are about to take action on legislation for cuts to public sector wages.
And before posters talk about strikes and what not i as a member of the public say..bring it on.

Jawgap

noodler wrote: »

The Clerical Officer thing requires more views.

But lets remember that we need only concern ourselves with the blue bars (i.e. ignore the social contributions by the employer and overtime).

The figures are also adjusted for Purchasing Price Parity...I'd love to see their workings as well.

Even after all that, we still pay clerical officers a fair whack more than they do in Britain - our largest trading partner.

Its also worth noting that clerical officer is one of the few public service jobs I can think of which requires no college degree and accounts for a very small percentage of total public service jobs.



Also this point



So they have decided to deduct the pension levy which will skew the figures. I also wonder if Neri have done the necessary research to see if there have been calls since 2009 in the countries surveyed to see if they have had larger pension contributions/levies as a result of the crisis.

I also wonder if the 50% of final salary pension clerical officers get is replicated across the countries surveyed.

It's OECD data so I assume they know what they are talking about.

Also, as I've said in another thread I don't mind getting what my opposite number in HM Civil Service gets as long as I get the NHS and the proper free education system.........and the proper local services........and the efficient public transport........

ardmacha

I also wonder if the 50% of final salary pension clerical officers get is replicated across the countries surveyed.

I'm sure the €136 /week wonder pension that a clerical officer would receive is available in other European countries, probably twice over.

It's OECD data so I assume they know what they are talking about.

What does the OECD know compared to Boards.ie?

sean200

jamaamaj wrote: »

Well about time the irish Government grew some balls and are about to take action on legislation for cuts to public sector wages.
And before posters talk about strikes and what not i as a member of the public say..bring it on.

Great deal and i am not losing 1 cent but even better is that my wife is going to take the HSE 3 year deal of 12k so we will not have to pay €2000 a month childcare
We need more deals like this

Count Dooku

Jawgap wrote: »

EDIT:- In 2009, clerical staff were paid below the OECD average - I can't imagine their situation has changed much in he wake of the various pay cuts that have been introduced since then.

Mostly because clerical staff in Ireland works less than rest of EU

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

Tea drinker

Jawgap wrote: »

Has is it been well established and if so where?

According to the OECD...."Middle managers, economists/policy analysts [my bit] and executive secretaries in the Irish public service receive total compensation that is quite close to the OECD average"

The required working week (34.75 hours) is lower than the OECD average, but that's the 'required working week' - the actual hours worked are different and I for one will definitely not work more than the required working week when this deal goes through - if salary is being linked to hours worked instead of job done, then the employer can have the hours paid for, and no more.

I also remember that up until late 2009 we had severe trouble recruiting and retaining staff. I remember more than once being laughed at in an interview when we told people what the starting salaries were, and we had plenty of people start but not even finish their first week - the record was held by one guy who started on Monday morning, go a call about another job and left by 10-30 without even the courtesy of telling anyone he was going!

The idea that the PS is a 'good' job has really only gained traction in the last 3/4 years up until then you were regarded almost as some kind of incompetent idiot who couldn't function anywhere else if you were inclined towards working in a job where service, rather than profit, was core value.




EDIT:- In 2009, clerical staff were paid below the OECD average - I can't imagine their situation has changed much in he wake of the various pay cuts that have been introduced since then.

A catastrophic failure to tackle Ireland's "out of control" public spending means it is now a high-tax economy, it has been claimed.
Despite a budget deficit of €15bn last year, the public pay bill is up to 35 per cent higher than the OECD average and our welfare spend is 29 per cent higher than the average, leading economist and Trinity College senator Sean Barrett has said.
However, junior finance minister Brian Hayes yesterday rejected Dr Barrett's analysis as "overly simplistic" and said the Government had "rigidly stuck" to its promise not to increase income tax.
Dr Barrett rejected claims made earlier last week in a pan-European research paper that Ireland was a low-tax economy. He said it was because of the rampant overspend on public services that we had become a high-tax economy.
"The international comparisons on pay in that report show that Ireland has a high public pay bill," he said. "The OECD average for compensation of employees is 10.8 per cent of GNP and in Ireland it is 14.1 per cent."

http://www.independent.ie/business/economist-warns-that-public-pay-is-out-of-control-29313806.html

Jawgap

GNP excludes FDI and that calculation does not take account of the effect of the pension levy.

GNP also doesn't take account of MNC's repatriated profits on which tax can be or is paid here.


If GNP is the correct way to measure and becnchmark all this why are all the targets specified against GDP? And do international organisations such as the OECD make wider use of GDP instead of GNP?