Public Sector Salary Scales

Xidu

I have 3 relatives are teachers and lecturer, all got salary cut. Actually, one of them said he owns less than what he owns 2 years ago.

Xidu

There is a possibility that the Govt will bring down income tax significantly to stimulate consumption.

chopper6

Xidu wrote: »

There is a possibility that the Govt will bring down income tax significantly to stimulate consumption.

They would if there was a chance that everybody would actually pay it...the Black Economy costs billions in lost tax revenue every year plus there's an enormous number of tax defaulters.

Here's a current list:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/

sarumite

chopper6 wrote: »

They would if there was a chance that everybody would actually pay it...the Black Economy costs billions in lost tax revenue every year plus there's an enormous number of tax defaulters.

Here's a current list:

http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/

If people under declare their income for tax purposes, then they wouldn't benefit as much from a tax cut.

chopper6

sarumite wrote: »

If people under declare their income for tax purposes, then they wouldn't benefit as much from a tax cut.

That doesnt make any sense.

sarumite

chopper6 wrote: »

That doesnt make any sense.

Of course it does. A tax cut will benefit those who pay most in income tax more than those who pay the least.

Although I am really not sure what the blackmarket has to do with the governments ability to reduce income tax?

barneystinson

sarumite wrote: »

Of course it does. A tax cut will benefit those who pay most in income tax more than those who pay the least.

Although I am really not sure what the blackmarket has to do with the governments ability to reduce income tax?

Well it seems fairly common sense to me, unless Im missing something..?

Income tax can only be readily collected from people who are tax compliant, be they employers deducting PAYE, or the self employed.

It's a lot more resource intensive for the State to collect from the black economy, and then you're into diminishing returns.

So, if you take the extreme case where say 80% of the economy is the black economy, then the rate of tax will be based on the visible 20%...

sarumite

barneystinson wrote: »

Well it seems fairly common sense to me, unless Im missing something..?

Income tax can only be readily collected from people who are tax compliant, be they employers deducting PAYE, or the self employed.

It's a lot more resource intensive for the State to collect from the black economy, and then you're into diminishing returns.

So, if you take the extreme case where say 80% of the economy is the black economy, then the rate of tax will be based on the visible 20%...

True. But there is no reason why a future decrease in the income tax rate is off the cards because of the black economy which is what has been suggested. Furthermore income tax is not, from what I have read, a big source of tax evasion which is what was implied. So going back to my point, we all know the black economy exists but why, now, would it suddenly impact government decision and not previously?

Bluebird Ran

TechnicalGroup wrote: »

Note that these pay scales can be very misleading, particularly to someone who works in the private sector.

First of all, these pay scales don't include 'allowances' which average €5,000 per worker in the public sector (average - some workers get far more and some get none).

A large proportion of these allowances are simply disguised salary supplements that go to everyone in the job - for example an allowance for fork lift drivers for driving a fork lift; allowances that teachers get for having the qualifications required for their job.

Others seem designed to look like expense reimbursements, but in reality are also salary-like payments - gardaí who wear a uniform get a uniform allowance. Plain-clothes gardaí get an allowance for not wearing a uniform.

The giveaway is that many of these allowances are pensionable - they are counted as salary when the pension is getting calculated. Oh, and then there is the lump sum - 18 months' salary tax free - plus the pension itself.

As a clerical Officer, I can confirm that allowances are not available to Civil servants. Unfortunately.

barneystinson

Bluebird Ran wrote: »

As a clerical Officer, I can confirm that allowances are not available to Civil servants. Unfortunately.

On the good side, Clerical Officers are arguably overpaid relative to similar roles in the private sector, particular at the top end of the scale...

Bluebird Ran

barneystinson wrote: »

On the good side, Clerical Officers are arguably overpaid relative to similar roles in the private sector, particular at the top end of the scale...

I give excellent value for money in my role.

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

On the good side, Clerical Officers are arguably overpaid relative to similar roles in the private sector, particular at the top end of the scale...

Have you conducted a recent job evaluation exercise to determine that this is the case?

ezra_pound

barneystinson wrote: »

On the good side, Clerical Officers are arguably overpaid relative to similar roles in the private sector, particular at the top end of the scale...

Are you talking gross pay or net pay? Ie have you considered all compulsory pension contributions if you're using post 95 scales. Are you taking pension levy into account? To be at the top of the scale the co would have been working for about 15 years. Are you taking this into account in your comparison?

barneystinson

ezra_pound wrote: »

Are you talking gross pay or net pay? Ie have you considered all compulsory pension contributions if you're using post 95 scales. Are you taking pension levy into account? To be at the top of the scale the co would have been working for about 15 years. Are you taking this into account in your comparison?

The Pension contributions are good value surely? If you think they're not, by all means do the numbers and let me know.

Yes is the answer anyway, I'm taking into account the deductions.

And steady on, they'd have to have come to work for 15 years, but as for the amount of work actually done during that time...!!

And just for context my wife is a CO.

barneystinson

Godge wrote: »

Have you conducted a recent job evaluation exercise to determine that this is the case?

Nope, but surely I'm entitled to express my opinion, based on my own experience having worked in jobs in both private & public sector in the last ten years with clerical/admin staff in both doing equivalent jobs.

Can you show me where there are thousands of roles in the private sector with as low an entry requirement academically as CO, but which start at over 20k and have potential without promotion to reach 38k?

Geuze

barneystinson wrote: »

The Pension contributions are good value surely? If you think they're not, by all means do the numbers and let me know.

At the normal 6.5% contribution, yes, the PS pension was good value to the worker.

But now with 6.5% cont plus PRD of 10% typically, pension conts have dramatically increased.

With no extra benefit, of course.

A paycut in disguise.

barneystinson

Geuze wrote: »

At the normal 6.5% contribution, yes, the PS pension was good value to the worker.

But now with 6.5% cont plus PRD of 10% typically, pension conts have dramatically increased.

With no extra benefit, of course.

A paycut in disguise.

It's not a paycut in disguise though, it's a paycut!? (And I'm paying it too BTW!) PRD has nothing to do with pension entitlement.

And just for accuracy a CO on the top of the scale pays about 2k in PRD (~5%) - a CO at the starting off pays about €500 (~2.5%).

woodoo

Top of the CO scale is 37K according to the union website. Effectively 33K when pension levy comes out. I don't think a CO should be paying the pension levy as they only will only get about 6K above the basic welfare rate of state pension. They already pay 2 other pension contributions and PRSI.

Its all academic anyway as there is no more pay cuts to come. The days of paycuts for the PS are over. A payrise is more likely in the next 5 years than a paycut.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

Top of the CO scale is 37K according to the union website. Effectively 33K when pension levy comes out. I don't think a CO should be paying the pension levy as they only will only get about 6K above the basic welfare rate of state pension. They already pay 2 other pension contributions and PRSI.

Its all academic anyway as there is no more pay cuts to come. The days of paycuts for the PS are over. A payrise is more likely in the next 5 years than a paycut.

For 37K to go to 33K, the person would need to be paying over 10% Pension levy on the entirety of their salary? Are you sure this is correct?

Jolly Red Giant

sarumite wrote: »

For 37K to go to 33K, the person would need to be paying over 10% Pension levy on the entirety of their salary? Are you sure this is correct?

First € 15,000 of earnings: exempt
Earnings between € 15,000 and € 20,000: 5%
Earnings between € 20,000 and € 60,000: 10%
Earnings above € 60,000: 10.5%


For €37K the levy would be approx €2K

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

Can you show me where there are thousands of roles in the private sector with as low an entry requirement academically as CO, but which start at over 20k and have potential without promotion to reach 38k?

Here ya go
http://www.payscale.com/research/IE/Job=Plasterer/Hourly_Rate

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Here ya go
http://www.payscale.com/research/IE/Job=Plasterer/Hourly_Rate

I clearly left out the word comparable...

Is a plasterer comparable to a CO, in your opinion?

Jawgap

chopper6 wrote: »

Here ya go
http://www.payscale.com/research/IE/Job=Plasterer/Hourly_Rate

I know two lads who did sh1te leaving certs but who are now pilots with Ryanair.

They funded their own training (one in Oz, the other in the US).

Starting salary for a Ryanair pilot is about 50/60 k.

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

I clearly left out the word comparable...

Is a plasterer comparable to a CO, in your opinion?

Yes,you did leave out the word comparable which rendered your whole post meaningless.

But then why is it *not* comparable?

They're two people working for a living,what difference does it make to you what people are earning?

chopper6

Jawgap wrote: »

I know two lads who did sh1te leaving certs but who are now pilots with Ryanair.

They funded their own training (one in Oz, the other in the US).

Starting salary for a Ryanair pilot is about 50/60 k.

I know a guy who left school at 15 and set up a courier company...he's now a multimillionaire with houses in south africa and Alicante.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Yes,you did leave out the word comparable which rendered your whole post meaningless.

But then why is it *not* comparable?

They're two people working for a living,what difference does it make to you what people are earning?

Actually I've had a look back and I see you only quoted half of my post - the first half gave the context... but hey if it makes you feel the need to take words out of context in order to support your argument I'm happy enough to note it, mark you as one of *those* contributors and move on..!

Oh and unless you actually believe that we should be living in a Communist utopia where all jobs pay the same then no, all jobs aren't comparable.

Plasterers don't start on 20k+, they serve their time as apprentices first.

CO's do not need to serve an apprenticeship.

So, can you point to a comparable role / roles in the private sector ie involving the same skillset, that thousands of disgruntled COs could move into, that would afford them a comparable remuneration / pension / flexible working arrangement...

Jawgap

barneystinson wrote: »

Nope, but surely I'm entitled to express my opinion, based on my own experience having worked in jobs in both private & public sector in the last ten years with clerical/admin staff in both doing equivalent jobs.

Can you show me where there are thousands of roles in the private sector with as low an entry requirement academically as CO, but which start at over 20k and have potential without promotion to reach 38k?

Ask a question and you get an answer that doesn't suit, so you asked another question.....

barneystinson wrote: »

Actually I've had a look back and I see you only quoted half of my post - the first half gave the context... but hey if it makes you feel the need to take words out of context in order to support your argument I'm happy enough to note it, mark you as one of *those* contributors and move on..!

Oh and unless you actually believe that we should be living in a Communist utopia where all jobs pay the same then no, all jobs aren't comparable.

Plasterers don't start on 20k+, they serve their time as apprentices first.

CO's do not need to serve an apprenticeship.

So, can you point to a comparable role / roles in the private sector ie involving the same skillset, that thousands of disgruntled COs could move into, that would afford them a comparable remuneration / pension / flexible working arrangement...

No doubt if someone comes along and answers that, you'll go for round #3 - is this like the Nice Referendum? You'll just keep going until you get the answer you want?

You basically want to know if there is an organisation (non-governmental) or private company in the state that has a similar structure and operation to the public sector into which large tranches of staff could transfer?

The answer is no.

If 'thousands of disgruntled COs' were on the street tomorrow some would retrain to do other things; some would get jobs elsewhere; some would emigrate; some would become stay-at-home parents etc etc.

If COs and the PS is such a soft touch for easy money how come you're not employed there? The jobs are advertised extensively and the application and selection process is as transparent as anything - go on, stick an application in.

If it is as easy as you say it is your promotion should be rapid.

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

Plasterers don't start on 20k+, they serve their time as apprentices first.

CO's do not need to serve an apprenticeship.

Yes and "CO's" need a certain level of education before they start work.



Swings and roundabouts really.


Are you another one of these people who feel academically superior to all those "overpaid CO's" yet were rejected in your application to the PS?

I remember when i first applied for my particular job there were over 1,100 applicants and i was the one who landed the post.

We can't all be winners,buddy..just keep on applying.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Yes and "CO's" need a certain level of education before they start work.



Swings and roundabouts really.


Are you another one of these people who feel academically superior to all those "overpaid CO's" yet were rejected in your application to the PS?

I remember when i first applied for my particular job there were over 1,100 applicants and i was the one who landed the post.

We can't all be winners,buddy..just keep on applying.

Once again - read my previous posts, particularly the top half of the one you quoted...

barneystinson

Jawgap wrote: »

Ask a question and you get an answer that doesn't suit, so you asked another question.....



No doubt if someone comes along and answers that, you'll go for round #3 - is this like the Nice Referendum? You'll just keep going until you get the answer you want?

You basically want to know if there is an organisation (non-governmental) or private company in the state that has a similar structure and operation to the public sector into which large tranches of staff could transfer?

The answer is no.

If 'thousands of disgruntled COs' were on the street tomorrow some would retrain to do other things; some would get jobs elsewhere; some would emigrate; some would become stay-at-home parents etc etc.

If COs and the PS is such a soft touch for easy money how come you're not employed there? The jobs are advertised extensively and the application and selection process is as transparent as anything - go on, stick an application in.

If it is as easy as you say it is your promotion should be rapid.

PMSL here!

READ my previous posts!

And yes I have been rapidly promoted, thanks to having had a good work ethic and a good manager who challenged me.

Some of the COs I work with are worth their weight in gold, others require constant supervision, almost like a young teenager.

But I digress, my point was and is that for the relative responsibilities & requirements of the roles, and having worked in both public & private sector CO scale is quite generous in proceeding to 37k

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

PMSL here!

READ my previous posts!

And yes I have been rapidly promoted, thanks to having had a good work ethic and a good manager who challenged me.

Some of the COs I work with are worth their weight in gold, others require constant supervision, almost like a young teenager.

But I digress, my point was and is that for the relative responsibilities & requirements of the roles, and having worked in both public & private sector CO scale is quite generous in proceeding to 37k

Which one?

I was ten years in my job before i hit 30k.

barneystinson

chopper6 wrote: »

Which one?

I was ten years in my job before i hit 30k.

Again, if you'd actually read the previous posts you'd see I responded to a poster who is a Civil Servant - I was therefore referring to the CO civil service scale.

chopper6

barneystinson wrote: »

Again, if you'd actually read the previous posts you'd see I responded to a poster who is a Civil Servant - I was therefore referring to the CO civil service scale.

Not a Public Sector CO scale generally?

Jawgap

barneystinson wrote: »

PMSL here!

READ my previous posts!

And yes I have been rapidly promoted, thanks to having had a good work ethic and a good manager who challenged me.

Some of the COs I work with are worth their weight in gold, others require constant supervision, almost like a young teenager.

But I digress, my point was and is that for the relative responsibilities & requirements of the roles, and having worked in both public & private sector CO scale is quite generous in proceeding to 37k

Hang on, you've switched from academic quals and linking that to income to linking income relative responsibilities and requirements?

I've worked in both PS and private sector (and at the moment I'm spreading my time between the two) and there are plenty of people in both who are woefully under and overpaid when you look at what they are responsible for.

Salaries are determined by whole range of factors in both the private and public sectors - unfair differentials are not the preserve of the public sector.

chopper6

Jawgap wrote: »

Hang on, you've switched from academic quals and linking that to income to linking income relative responsibilities and requirements?

I've worked in both PS and private sector (and at the moment I'm spreading my time between the two) and there are plenty of people in both who are woefully under and overpaid when you look at what they are responsible for.

Salaries are determined by whole range of factors in both the private and public sectors - unfair differentials are not the preserve of the public sector.

There's a guy who works with me who's the head of the IT section in my job.

He's on the top of the Exec scale and will be lucky if he retires with two Long Service Increments...by his own admission he's be making almost double the money in the private sector for doing the same job.

everdead.ie

chopper6 wrote: »

There's a guy who works with me who's the head of the IT section in my job.

He's on the top of the Exec scale and will be lucky if he retires with two Long Service Increments...by his own admission he's be making almost double the money in the private sector for doing the same job.

This is slightly off topic but if the money was that much better why hasn't he moved he's obviously getting something big that would let him take half the salary?

Icepick

chopper6 wrote: »

There's a guy who works with me who's the head of the IT section in my job.

He's on the top of the Exec scale and will be lucky if he retires with two Long Service Increments...by his own admission he's be making almost double the money in the private sector for doing the same job.

not the same job
same role

barneystinson

Jawgap wrote: »

Hang on, you've switched from academic quals and linking that to income to linking income relative responsibilities and requirements?

I haven't actually - and since you and Chopper seem determined to keep on taking my words out of context I'm going to quote the relevant posts that got this whole thing going...

Bluebird Ran wrote: »

As a clerical Officer, I can confirm that allowances are not available to Civil servants. Unfortunately.

barneystinson wrote: »

On the good side, Clerical Officers are arguably overpaid relative to similar roles in the private sector, particular at the top end of the scale...

Godge wrote: »

Have you conducted a recent job evaluation exercise to determine that this is the case?

barneystinson wrote: »

Nope, but surely I'm entitled to express my opinion, based on my own experience having worked in jobs in both private & public sector in the last ten years with clerical/admin staff in both doing equivalent jobs. Can you show me where there are thousands of roles in the private sector with as low an entry requirement academically as CO, but which start at over 20k and have potential without promotion to reach 38k?

The bit in bold is the bit that Chopper chose not to quote when attacking me - and clearly it shows that I'm talking about EQUIVALENT (or comparable) roles in terms of clerical / admin work.

So I haven't moved the goalposts or changed what I'm asking - I was always talking about the Civil Service CO and whether or not they are relatively well remunerated by comparison to an equivalent private sector worker - my opinion remains yes, and no-one has yet shown me any evidence to the contrary.

One of the OECD/EU (I think) reports which was argued over ad nauseum on a couple of previous PS bashing threads last year, indicated that it is at the lower paid end of the public / civil service that the greatest pay gap between public and private sector exists, and I'm inclined to agree, based on my own experience. But of course that is an inconvenient truth..!

I've worked in both PS and private sector (and at the moment I'm spreading my time between the two) and there are plenty of people in both who are woefully under and overpaid when you look at what they are responsible for. Salaries are determined by whole range of factors in both the private and public sectors - unfair differentials are not the preserve of the public sector.

I don't disagree with this at all, and if you look at previous threads we've agreed on plenty of things, but not this and I'm not sure whether it's just a misunderstanding because Chopper decided to attack me by taking half a post and changing the context of my words.

I have expressed a very simple opinion, based on my own experience and the evidence of my own eyes, knowing what the civil service CO scale is and what they do, and having worked with people in the private sector doing the same type of jobs who would never be paid 37k + defined benefit pension + flexible working hours + generous sick leave + annual leave in excess of statutory minimum.

Jawgap

chopper6 wrote: »

There's a guy who works with me who's the head of the IT section in my job.

He's on the top of the Exec scale and will be lucky if he retires with two Long Service Increments...by his own admission he's be making almost double the money in the private sector for doing the same job.

Likewise.

I work four days per week in the Public Sector and one day per week for a consultancy - it's difficult to equate one with the other, but if the hourly rate payable on the private work was to be paid for the 30 or so hours I work in the public sector, things would be a lot 'nicer'

Spanish Eyes

The economy is improving. Slowly I know, but it is.

The Public Sector have given their share. Without too much bitching. Give them credit FGS. I'm private sector myself, but did not like for one minute the Divide and Conquer rule that abounded for a couple of years.

That, IMV was deflection away from the debacle of the IMF and the Banks.

But anyhow, as for this restoration of pay cuts... Is there a general election sometime soon or what?

Icepick

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The economy is improving. Slowly I know, but it is.
The Public Sector have given their share.

As a whole, the PS is still overpaid and underachieving.

How is nonsense like this still possible?
Telecoms quango pays out €3.7m in staff bonuses

chopper6

Icepick wrote: »

As a whole, the PS is still overpaid and underachieving.

What,all 340,000 of them?

Stop talking crap...

Jawgap

Icepick wrote: »

As a whole, the PS is still overpaid and underachieving.

How is nonsense like this still possible?
Telecoms quango pays out €3.7m in staff bonuses

So an organisation that has gathered in €371m for the exchequer in 12 years......that costs €22m a year to run, but brings in €54m each year......that regulates a €5billion industry......is being called out for paying bonuses and that's what passes for nonsense.........bonuses that represent 0.074% of the industry's turnover...........riiiiiiiiiight:rolleyes:

By the way according to Payscale, Vodafone pays a similar level of bonuses to their staff.

everdead.ie

Jawgap wrote: »

So an organisation that has gathered in €371m for the exchequer in 12 years......that costs €22m a year to run, but brings in €54m each year......that regulates a €5billion industry......is being called out for paying bonuses and that's what passes for nonsense.........bonuses that represent 0.074% of the industry's turnover...........riiiiiiiiiight:rolleyes:

By the way according to Payscale, Vodafone pays a similar level of bonuses to their staff.

I actually don't mind organisations which make profits paying bonuses but I think using the industry turnover is silly that has no relevance to the funds available. Standard would say it should be a percentage of profit which given the figures is actually over 10% which is a lot for any company private or public to be spending on bonuses the only industry that would be worse than that would be investment banking which is on a whole other level of stupidity.

Edit: of course no one mentioned it was 3.7m over a five year period which would make the level of bonuses around 2% which is a much much more acceptable level.

mariaalice

Almost every thread in this forum inventible turns in to two solutions to every problem. Not every poster of course.

(1) Every one employed by the state is paid too much and various versions of that argument.

(2)Every one on social welfare is too well off and living a cushy lifestyle and various versions of that argument.

Some of the poster are brilliant at turning the most tenuous connection around to their favourite hobby horse which is ....all of them are getting TOO much I'm telling ya!!!!!!

mariaalice

Icepick wrote: »

As a whole, the PS is still overpaid and underachieving.

How is nonsense like this still possible?
Telecoms quango pays out €3.7m in staff bonuses

I am curious did you see the bit where they are employed on individual contracts and are not public servant, and that their contrast have performance related bonus as part of their pay?

Jawgap

everdead.ie wrote: »

I actually don't mind organisations which make profits paying bonuses but I think using the industry turnover is silly that has no relevance to the funds available. Standard would say it should be a percentage of profit which given the figures is actually over 10% which is a lot for any company private or public to be spending on bonuses the only industry that would be worse than that would be investment banking which is on a whole other level of stupidity.

Edit: of course no one mentioned it was 3.7m over a five year period which would make the level of bonuses around 2% which is a much much more acceptable level.

You're right, turnover has no bearing on bonuses, nor should it have - I was just using it to show some context, and to show the weight of responsibility that falls on that regulator.

I always find it amusing that people complain about under-performing public servants......

......then they complain when a cash-generative operation in the pubic service uses a form of motivation (bonuses) that is well tried and tested in the private sector to encourage performance - talking about having your cake and eating it!

I really think there are a lot of people out there who won't be happy until public servants are paid in washers and living in cardboard boxes under the M50.

The question about 'individualisation' is an interesting one, and another example of people wanting their cake and eating it in terms of PS criticism.

I work for a regulator (not COMREG) and about 3 years ago they individualised our contracts - without bonuses (which we never had anyway), but leaving us to pay our own professional indemnity insurance. Anyway, the logic was that practitioners in our field pay their own 'tickets' - which they do, if they are free-lancers or self-employed.

On the basis that we were being treated as 'hired guns' a few of us started to take on extra work (outside the jurisdiction) and promptly received snotty letters for our trouble - in the subsequent 'discussion' the employer was given the option - pay the insurance (like all other employers) or introduce a framework that allowed us to take on extra work in our own time.

They chose 'B' - since then the four of us who were affected had something of an epiphany - one took early retirement (back to the private sector), 2 left (back to the private sector) and I went part-time (80% PS, 20% private) - all of which 'saves' the public purse thousands each year!

Mr. teddywinkles

chopper6 wrote: »

Yes and "CO's" need a certain level of education before they start work.



Swings and roundabouts really.


Are you another one of these people who feel academically superior to all those "overpaid CO's" yet were rejected in your application to the PS?

I remember when i first applied for my particular job there were over 1,100 applicants and i was the one who landed the post.

We can't all be winners,buddy..just keep on applying.

ego run amuck there lad

Mr. teddywinkles

Jawgap wrote: »

I know two lads who did sh1te leaving certs but who are now pilots with Ryanair.

They funded their own training (one in Oz, the other in the US).

Starting salary for a Ryanair pilot is about 50/60 k.

Again that means they did fook all to achieve what they have yes?

Jawgap

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Again that means they did fook all to achieve what they have yes?

No, it means there are jobs in the private sector with lower entry requirements than CO in the PS and offer much greater potential to earn far in excess of 38k......

barneystinson wrote: »

Nope, but surely I'm entitled to express my opinion, based on my own experience having worked in jobs in both private & public sector in the last ten years with clerical/admin staff in both doing equivalent jobs.

Can you show me where there are thousands of roles in the private sector with as low an entry requirement academically as CO, but which start at over 20k and have potential without promotion to reach 38k?