Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

fliball123

Riskymove wrote: »

jaysus...we are heading for another 1,000 posts of these circular arguments

Fliball, no one disputes the accuracy of the stats...it is the interpetation or use of that statistic that is the problem

This is the thing Risky the headline stat cannot be ignored..yet people will skew things in their favour by picking limited sample sizes on either side..which is flawed statistics. Once you have a very large sample size which we have the results are extremely accurate. Then the counter you cannot compare apples and oranges comes out with complete ignorance of the benchmarking process. Then they leave out arguments such as choice you have in the private sector...not just in competition but as in not to participate in taking up a services offered in the private sector if you think the price is too steep.. Yet with a headline figure of 40% wage premium these union jokers want more ??

gazzer

fliball123 wrote: »

Once again I ask you are they worth 40% more overall. You could also argue that the likes of tycoons and business owners earning millions and millions would skew the figure upwards for the private sector..once again I stated that any argument you make for one sector can be countered with another stat, but the overall figure cannot be ignored..Especially when the ps are looking for more and when we get a very poor return for it.

Do a check for the wages that non Civil Servant staff in IT sections of government departments get for contract work and compare it against the salaries that Civil Servants IT Staff get. You will see there is a massive difference in favour of the contract staff.

barneystinson

I give up on arguing about averages with you Fliball, you'll no doubt think you've won somehow, but even the people on the anti-PS side who have any appreciation of the figures won't agree with the nonsense in your last few posts.

You still haven't told me what country's pay SYSTEM we should try to emulate BTW. Or should we take an average of Germany and Norway, Germway?!

fliball123

gazzer wrote: »

Do a check for the wages that non Civil Servant staff in IT sections government departments get for contract work and compare it against the salaries that Civil Servants IT Staff get. You will see there is a massive difference in favour of the contract staff.

Is that taking pensions, holidays, security of work into account aswell..As far as I am aware contract work has a high level of pay due to the insecurity and short term nature of it.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Is that taking pensions, holidays, security of work into account aswell..As far as I am aware contract work has a high level of pay due to the insecurity and short term nature of it.

So what are you saying then, apples and oranges?:pac:

mariaalice

fliball123 wrote: »

Ardmacha the public sector is not worth 40% more in wages then the private sector. They do not work 40% harder than the private sector. They get benefits that far outstrip those within the private sector. We get a pretty poor level of service through out the public service for what we pay. So regardless of education or class.. Ask yourself the question whats the difference between a dosser or a dosser with a degree ??

The likes of yourself always heads off on a tangent such as north korea when the poster is on the right right track

You are entitled to you opinion as much as anyone else, however have you anything new to add to this debate this thread is I don't know how many pages long and you are just going round and round in circles.

What I have take from this thread some people will never be happy no matter how much or little the public services are paid.

The posters with the well thought well reasoned argument about the public services long ago dropped out of the debate leaving it to the foaming at the mouth with rage posters, who post circular argument over and over again.

Some public servants don't under stand the terms and conditions of their own employment.

Some poster were under the impression that public servants only meant administrators.

The whole tread was almost completely pointless it was never going to happen in a general sense.

The HRA does allow for restoration in pay if certain factors are met.

Riskymove

fliball123 wrote: »

This is the thing Risky the headline stat cannot be ignored..

I'm not saying it should be...just that it should be understood for what it is

the same publication that gives the average PS wage of €918 and average private of €622 sets out the entire economy into 13 categories

Of these 13 categories, the average wage in 9 of them is in excess of the €622 figure

2 of the categories earn over €1,000 a week

the 622 figure has as much relevane to the entire 1.7m private sector workers as the 918 as to all 282k PS....very little

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

I give up on arguing about averages with you Fliball, you'll no doubt think you've won somehow, but even the people on the anti-PS side who have any appreciation of the figures won't agree with the nonsense in your last few posts.

You still haven't told me what country's pay SYSTEM we should try to emulate BTW. Or should we take an average of Germany and Norway, Germway?!

Barney your giving up because you know I am right in what I am saying..spinning a subset of a larger sample size in stats can be spun to what ever you want by picking the numbers you want.

I have said that you are right with regards to comparisons in both sectors , yet it was done twice before so that argument you have put forward is null and void as it can be done if there was a will to do it.

Look I have no problem with people in the PS getting payrises or increments if they deserve them and if the country was not broke and borrowing.

But looking at the stats they are overall paid 40% and we are borrowing 6 - 8 odd billion this year to pay the bills..Under those curcumstances and while we are still borrowing pay rises should not be happening.


as for a PS module I would follow Finland or Denmark..You never here of a crisis in either country the way we have been hearing about Portual, Greece or Cyprus..

Just to give you some bed time reading aswell..and I would be of the same opinoin as this man

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/stats-dont-lie-public-sector-is-still-mollycoddled-29907776.html

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Once again I ask you are they worth 40% more overall. You could also argue that the likes of tycoons and business owners earning millions and millions would skew the figure upwards for the private sector..once again I stated that any argument you make for one sector can be countered with another stat, but the overall figure cannot be ignored..Especially when the ps are looking for more and when we get a very poor return for it.

Do you really understand nothing? Do you really never read anyone else's post? Seriously. I explained to you already using a simple example of a country of 10 people to show how the exclusion of business tycoons and the contracting out of cleaners distorted the statistics. Here it is again.

Godge wrote: »

You have no understanding of statistics or comparability.


Take a country of 10 people.

There are four private sector workers earning a salary of 30k each. There are two business owners exploiting those workers and taking 200k each out of their business.

In the public sector there are four people, two cleaners earning 25k and two administrators earning 35k.

Average pay in the public sector is 30k. Average pay in the private sector is 30k.

The two business owners agitate that the public sector is inefficient and that there should be more contracting out. The public sector decides to outsource cleaning. The two cleaners become employees of the private sector company who cut their wages to 20k.

Average pay in the private sector drops to €26k, average pay in the public sector rises to €35k. The two business owners see an increase in profits and also agitate that the public sector is overpaid even though nothing has changed except they have increased their exploitation of workers. Public service pay is cut to €30k and the taxes on the two business owners go down.

So, business owners see profits go up and taxes go down, both private and public sector see wages fall and the likes of filiball fall for the argument that the public sector are overpaid.

Changing the sample size does nothing as the principles remain. The statistics are skewed because self-employed, business directors, etc. are excluded from the private sector statistics and also because the public sector has contracted out many low-wage activity to the private sector. Please stop embarrassing yourself over this one as sometimes you make some good points on other issues but you are out of our depth on this one.

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

So what are you saying then, apples and oranges?:pac:

No I am just stating facts once again its taking a subset of the sample size and spinning it in the favour of the public service..

What about comparing the part time cleaners through out dublin and public sector cleaners? These arguments can be done to death without any significant results. The only stat that cannot be shied away from is the headline figure

fliball123

mariaalice wrote: »

You are entitled to you opinion as much as anyone else, however have you anything new to add to this debate this thread is I don't know how many pages long and you are just going round and round in circles.

What I have take from this thread some people will never be happy no matter how much or little the public services are paid.

The posters with the well thought well reasoned argument about the public services long ago dropped out of the debate leaving it to the foaming at the mouth with rage posters, who post circular argument over and over again.

Some public servants don't under stand the terms and conditions of their own employment.

Some poster were under the impression that public servants only meant administrators.

The whole tread was almost completely pointless it was never going to happen in a general sense.

The HRA does allow for restoration in pay if certain factors are met.

Hey I was the one calling for it to be closed as it is a non-argument FG have been out stating that its not happening. This is the thing the ps vs private had gone silent for months maybe even a year..its only when the unions stick their beardy heads up and look for pay rises that it gets generally the majority of the private sector gander up..Add in the fact they are looking for it at time that we are still borrowing (so we have to find this extra cash somewhere or borrow it) and will have to start paying water charges aswell, its like we live in a different planets to the beards

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Barney your giving up because you know I am right in what I am saying..spinning a subset of a larger sample size in stats can be spun to what ever you want by picking the numbers you want.

Did you know that the CSO only looks at a small number of companies for its surveys, it doesn't look at every company or public sector employment in the country?

So who is spinning who?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Do you really understand nothing? Do you really never read anyone else's post? Seriously. I explained to you already using a simple example of a country of 10 people to show how the exclusion of business tycoons and the contracting out of cleaners distorted the statistics. Here it is again.



Changing the sample size does nothing as the principles remain. The statistics are skewed because self-employed, business directors, etc. are excluded from the private sector statistics and also because the public sector has contracted out many low-wage activity to the private sector. Please stop embarrassing yourself over this one as sometimes you make some good points on other issues but you are out of our depth on this one.

Sorry when the sample size is the entire number that you are sampling then the results are very accurate the higher the number you sample the higher the degree of accuracy. So you can subset it, sample certain areas, skew it in favour of people on contracts or to GPs. The fact is there is nothing you can do to skew the headline figure..There is no argument you can make that will do so. I have shown you how I can skew it completely in favour of the Private sector as well each time you or Barney try to skew it in favour of the public sector...40% overall ps over private there is no diluting that, nothing you can say will dilute ..sorry you have lost your argument

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Did you know that the CSO only looks at a small number of companies for its surveys, it doesn't look at every company or public sector employment in the country?

So who is spinning who?

I believe the latest one was done via the census data that was collected.

antoobrien

gazzer wrote: »

Do a check for the wages that non Civil Servant staff in IT sections of government departments get for contract work and compare it against the salaries that Civil Servants IT Staff get. You will see there is a massive difference in favour of the contract staff.

The same is true of the private sector, the higher rates are to compensate for the non-permanent nature of the position.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry when the sample size is the entire number that you are sampling then the results are very accurate the higher the number you sample the higher the degree of accuracy. So you can subset it, sample certain areas, skew it in favour of people on contracts or to GPs. The fact is there is nothing you can do to skew the headline figure..There is no argument you can make that will do so. I have shown you how I can skew it completely in favour of the Private sector as well each time you or Barney try to skew it in favour of the public sector...40% overall ps over private there is no diluting that, nothing you can say will dilute ..sorry you have lost your argument

OK, OK I'll take the bait!

All snide comments and point scoring aside - I'm actually not trying to be smart but I'm trying to fundamentally change how either you or I understand statistics and averages - can you explain how it is comparable to compare the average of the entire PS pay with the average of private sector pay? I'm going to try and explain the way I think about it, and I'd appreciate it if you at least read what I'm saying and think about it before you reply.

You've mentioned benchmarking lots of times on here. If you think about benchmarking, that requires you to try and find something that you can compare like for like. So if we could go and pull out of the 1.7m private sector workers, the 300k whose jobs were most similar to each of the 300k people working in the public sector, what do you think we would see? As someone who favours genuine benchmarking, I assume that's actually an exercise you'd endorse, if it was actually possible to do it? That's a genuine question, and not a trick question. I know for absolute certain that I could earn more doing an equivalent job in the private sector, so it's not something that I'd have any issue with, if it were feasible.

I reckon we would see a good few in each group who are paid more than their equivalent in the other sector, and a good few who are paid less, and plenty who are not far apart in either direction. My personal belief is that at the lower end is where you'll find the PS cohort ahead, as well as some in the middle, and then as you go higher up it swings in favour of the private sector.

Now, having taken those 300k private sector people, and bear in mind that these are the 300k people in the private sector whose jobs are the most similar to the 300k in the PS - what would happen if you took their average pay and compared it to the average of their 300k equivalents in the PS?

And how would their average pay compare to the other 1.4m private sector workers whose jobs (and wage rates) range from slightly different to completely different?

In which case, when you add the 300k back in with the other very different 1.4m workers, and get a new average, how does that become a better average to compare, or benchmark, the PS average against?

Surely the only relevant average, is the average of the two like-for-like groups?

I've genuinely read your posts and they just don't make sense to me - the only way the figures make sense, to me at least, is when I think about it like that. I'm entirely open to you explaining how you see it in a way that makes more sense than that, and changing my mind.

Larbre34

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry when the sample size is the entire number that you are sampling then the results are very accurate the higher the number you sample the higher the degree of accuracy. So you can subset it, sample certain areas, skew it in favour of people on contracts or to GPs. The fact is there is nothing you can do to skew the headline figure..There is no argument you can make that will do so. I have shown you how I can skew it completely in favour of the Private sector as well each time you or Barney try to skew it in favour of the public sector...40% overall ps over private there is no diluting that, nothing you can say will dilute ..sorry you have lost your argument

No there is nothing to be done to skew the headline figure. It was calculated on a false premise in the first place so it is entirely useless to the argument being had here.

Unless and until the private sector data discounts the service workers, part-time, casual and zero hour contract staff from the less skilled end of the economy which do not feature in the Public Service, it is a complete case of apples and oranges.

ardmacha

On average Irish adults have 0.99 of a breast and 0.9995 of a testicle. This average, like those frequently quoted here, is entirely useless as guide to policy.

mirrorwall14

Increasing sample size does not improve bias or skewed collection methods.

This misconception is one of the reasons for Project Maths teaching a major chunk of statistics to second level students. They need to learn to challenge statistics such as this one and others.

woodoo

I often wonder what inspires the anti PS brigade. Something is really agitating them. Perhaps its people who feel bitter because their careers haven't turned out as they'd hoped and they are on low wages. Or maybe its people earnings decent money but they made silly decisions or had poor money management skills and are subsequently bitter about that.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I believe the latest one was done via the census data that was collected.

Link?

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

OK, OK I'll take the bait!

All snide comments and point scoring aside - I'm actually not trying to be smart but I'm trying to fundamentally change how either you or I understand statistics and averages - can you explain how it is comparable to compare the average of the entire PS pay with the average of private sector pay? I'm going to try and explain the way I think about it, and I'd appreciate it if you at least read what I'm saying and think about it before you reply.

You've mentioned benchmarking lots of times on here. If you think about benchmarking, that requires you to try and find something that you can compare like for like. So if we could go and pull out of the 1.7m private sector workers, the 300k whose jobs were most similar to each of the 300k people working in the public sector, what do you think we would see? As someone who favours genuine benchmarking, I assume that's actually an exercise you'd endorse, if it was actually possible to do it? That's a genuine question, and not a trick question. I know for absolute certain that I could earn more doing an equivalent job in the private sector, so it's not something that I'd have any issue with, if it were feasible.

I reckon we would see a good few in each group who are paid more than their equivalent in the other sector, and a good few who are paid less, and plenty who are not far apart in either direction. My personal belief is that at the lower end is where you'll find the PS cohort ahead, as well as some in the middle, and then as you go higher up it swings in favour of the private sector.

Now, having taken those 300k private sector people, and bear in mind that these are the 300k people in the private sector whose jobs are the most similar to the 300k in the PS - what would happen if you took their average pay and compared it to the average of their 300k equivalents in the PS?

And how would their average pay compare to the other 1.4m private sector workers whose jobs (and wage rates) range from slightly different to completely different?

In which case, when you add the 300k back in with the other very different 1.4m workers, and get a new average, how does that become a better average to compare, or benchmark, the PS average against?

Surely the only relevant average, is the average of the two like-for-like groups?

I've genuinely read your posts and they just don't make sense to me - the only way the figures make sense, to me at least, is when I think about it like that. I'm entirely open to you explaining how you see it in a way that makes more sense than that, and changing my mind.

People can argue all they want but when the same comparisons in other countries the same differential is not there. How do you all explain this one? Look I was calling for this thread to be closed as there will be no pay rises going in in the next couple of years above increments...and I am tired of the argument when the stats are there and comparisons in other countries show that the differential between public and private are not anywhere near the gap that is here..Yet we will hear the Public sector distort things to their agenda and even with all the anomalies that are there , they are also there in other countries yet our differential is more..

As I say I don't want to be coming across trying to kick you..I think the PS in general (front line in particular) do a good job. There are some slackers and there is a complete piss take with sick days..and I had not posted on anything PS related for nearly a year..It was only when the beards started and Howling started that I and others in the private sector felt compelled to remind all of you..we are still borrowing, next year we are paying for water and that the PS should be no where near the top of the queue when alleviation of the current burden comes..

It is a pointless argument as the stats can be skewed but the headline one cannot and the comparison with other countries cannot...

Lets just leave it there shall we..there will be no pay rises in the next couple of years above increments and rightly so.

Mod: Poster banned for continuous use of "beards", despite an earlier card, which is specifically prohibited in the charter.

gazzer

antoobrien wrote: »

The same is true of the private sector, the higher rates are to compensate for the non-permanent nature of the position.

There is a MASSIVE difference though even taking the 'non permanent nature'. I will give my area as an example.

Civil Service IT Staff are getting a salary of between €25,000 to €62,000 (Depending on Grade and length of service)

The salary scale for the contractors is €110,000 to €130,000.

These contracts are for 18 months with an option to extend. As somebody who is responsible for drafting the tenders and evaluating them for contractor staff I can 100% say that we have had the same contractors for the last 6 years. When we go to tender we get a LOT of expressions of interest but when it comes to the actual applications come in we are lucky if we get 2. From feedback we have gotten the reason for the lack of responses is because the money been offered is too low.

Myself and other Civil Service IT staff has asked to be trained up to do the work of these contractors. Obviously it is not something you can learn overnight but I have been asking for the last 6 years. One of the contractors gets paid the same as 3 staff at my level and grade. Its crazy the amount of money been spent.

Geuze

The ESRI have studied the public-private wage premium.

Using 2003-2006 data, the premium was found to be between 14-26%.

See here:

https://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2864

https://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20091102110232/WP321.pdf

Geuze

The CSO also did work on this topic, published 2012, using 2009 and 2010 data, see here:

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


This found a wage gap of 10-19% in 2010, with various statistical techniques applied.


Note that for permanent, full-time workers aged between 25-59, the PS premium, after adjusted for the size of the organisation, is 6.1-7.3%

NB: the CSO data does not included the effects of the PRD - Pension Related Deduction, which was substantial.

Geuze

Note that the 7% pay premium found by the CSO in 2010, would have been eliminated by the PRD.

The PRD marginal rates are 0%, 5%, 10%, 10.5%, see below.

The effective rate of PRD on 40k gross is 5.625%, see below.

So with the 2009 PRD and the 2010 pay-cut, the PS pay premium has been reduced to practically zero.



PRD details

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%
Based on these currently applicable PRD rates, the amounts of PRD arising at a series of annual pay points up to and including €60,000 are as follows:
Pay of €15,000: No PRD
Pay of €20,000: PRD of €250
Pay of €25,000: PRD of €750
Pay of €30,000: PRD of €1,250
Pay of €35,000: PRD of €1,750
Pay of €40,000: PRD of €2,250
Pay of €45,000: PRD of €2,750
Pay of €50,000: PRD of €3,250
Pay of €55,000: PRD of €3,750
Pay of €60,000: PRD of €4,250

Geuze

The ESRI published more work in Winter 2012.

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RN20120402.pdf

Here they discuss which of the CSO techniques should be used.


They argue that one of the CSO results is more accurate, so they feel the 2010 average PS pay premium is 17%.

Note that this excludes the effects of the PRD, which would mean a 10% approx pay premium after the PRD.

golfwallah

Geuze wrote: »

The ESRI published more work in Winter 2012.

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RN20120402.pdf

Here they discuss which of the CSO techniques should be used.


They argue that one of the CSO results is more accurate, so they feel the 2010 average PS pay premium is 17%.

Note that this excludes the effects of the PRD, which would mean a 10% approx pay premium after the PRD.

Good information, Geuze!

But just a few points that need clarification:

My understanding is that the Pension Related Deduction (PRD) was introduced so that PS workers with non-contributory pension arrangements would have to start contributing towards the cost of providing their pensions.

Most private sector workers were already contributing towards the cost of their pensions, in firms that had such schemes or providing 100% for their own pensions in firms that didn't have schemes.

So, unless I can be convinced otherwise and although I accept that the PRD was a new charge on Public Service workers, I don't see the need to make any adjustment in the pay differential because of it.

Perhaps you may be double counting here?

Geuze

golfwallah wrote: »

Good information, Geuze!

My understanding is that the Pension Related Deduction (PRD) was introduced so that PS workers with non-contributory pension arrangements would have to start contributing towards the cost of providing their pensions.

Public servants pay 6.5% pension conts, and always have done.

(You may be thinking about the 30,000 civil servants, their pension is non-contributory, they just pay 1.5% for the spouses and children scheme)

On top of the 6.5%, all PS workers, including civil servants, now pay the PRD, with no extra benefits at all. The marginal pension cont rate is now 17% for many PS staff.

You can call it an extra pension contribution, or you can call it a pay-cut, or a specific tax on the PS, either way it's more deductions, and less net pay, with no benefits.


Some fools in the media say that PS staff don't pay for their pensions - there has always been a staff 6.5% contribution, before the PRD.

golfwallah

Geuze wrote: »

Public servants pay 6.5% pension conts, and always have done.

(You may be thinking about the 30,000 civil servants, their pension is non-contributory, they just pay 1.5% for the spouses and children scheme)

On top of the 6.5%, all PS workers, including civil servants, now pay the PRD, with no extra benefits at all. The marginal pension cont rate is now 17% for many PS staff.

You can call it an extra pension contribution, or you can call it a pay-cut, or a specific tax on the PS, either way it's more deductions, and less net pay, with no benefits.


Some fools in the media say that PS staff don't pay for their pensions - there has always been a staff 6.5% contribution, before the PRD.

Thanks for clarifying that, Geuze.

The marginal pension contribution rate for some PS staff is now very high - but there are indeed very real benefits from having a guaranteed PS pension that keeps pace with pay rises!

I wish I had such a pension and so do many more who are not in the PS!

Sheldons Brain

golfwallah wrote:

My understanding is that the Pension Related Deduction (PRD) was introduced so that PS workers with non-contributory pension arrangements would have to start contributing towards the cost of providing their pensions.

This isn't really accurate. Pre '95 persons who do not pay pension contributions have lower salary scales, so their situation is not hugely different except in an accounting sense. The PRD was mostly a pay cut at a time before an absolute pay cut was thought acceptable. Its character is clear because it is payable on payments that are not pensionable.

golfwallah wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that, Geuze.

The marginal pension contribution rate for some PS staff is now very high - but there are indeed very real benefits from having a guaranteed PS pension that keeps pace with pay rises!

I wish I had such a pension and so do many more who are not in the PS!

Keeping pace with pay rises might have had some benefit in the 70s, but is not notable in an era of deflation.

Geuze

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This isn't really accurate. Pre '95 persons who do not pay pension contributions have lower salary scales, so their situation is not hugely different except in an accounting sense. The PRD was mostly a pay cut at a time before an absolute pay cut was thought acceptable. Its character is clear because it is payable on payments that are not pensionable.
.

Some confusion here.

Pre 95 staff do not pay full-rate PRSI.

They do pay pension conts.

Teachers, etc. have paid 6.5% pension conts for decades.


Exceptions: civil servants and a few other groups have non-contributory occupational pensions, paying just 1.5%.

barneystinson

Geuze wrote: »

Some confusion here.

Pre 95 staff do not pay full-rate PRSI.

They do pay pension conts.

Teachers, etc. have paid 6.5% pension conts for decades.


Exceptions: civil servants and a few other groups have non-contributory occupational pensions, paying just 1.5%.

What civil servants are they? I'm post-95 civil servant and I pay 6.5%.

As for Golfwallah's point about the PS pension, in most very large private sector organisations there are occupational schemes, and generally the rmployer's contribution is somewhere between 1 and 2 times the employee's.

I havent read the earlier linked material but I would expect that this has been factored in if as you mentioned the data has been controlled for organisation size..?

Geuze

golfwallah wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that, Geuze.

The marginal pension contribution rate for some PS staff is now very high - but there are indeed very real benefits from having a guaranteed PS pension that keeps pace with pay rises!

I wish I had such a pension and so do many more who are not in the PS!

It is a good pension, yes.

I'm not sure if it's guaranteed to rise in line with pay.

That's what happened in the past, yes, but that's not law, AFAIK.

I *think* the Govt are free to break the link between pension rises and payrises, even for current pensioners.

Godge

Geuze wrote: »

It is a good pension, yes.

I'm not sure if it's guaranteed to rise in line with pay.

That's what happened in the past, yes, but that's not law, AFAIK.

I *think* the Govt are free to break the link between pension rises and payrises, even for current pensioners.

The pay cuts broke the link as the cuts in pension were not the same as the cuts in pay.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the pensions in payment as the pay cuts are restored.

Gumbo

I thought I read a few years back that they have cut the link of all new pensions to any pay rises for that grade in the future!

antoobrien

kceire wrote: »

I thought I read a few years back that they have cut the link of all new pensions to any pay rises for that grade in the future!

For new employees only, status quo ante for existing employees.

The Irish Government has published legislation introducing changes to public service pensions for new entrants. It hopes to save 35% on state annual expenditure on pension schemes by 2050. Key changes mean the calculation of pensions based on ‘final salary’ will end and ‘career averaging’ will be introduced. Post-retirement pension increases will be linked to the consumer price index and the minimum public service pension age will rise to 68, with a maximum retirement age of 70.

Seems to be for 2012 hires.

Riskymove

kceire wrote: »

I thought I read a few years back that they have cut the link of all new pensions to any pay rises for that grade in the future!

the Government had decided to break the link and instead only increase pensions in line with cost of living increases.

However, when they realised this meant they would have to increase pensions in the current climate, they postponed to a future date!

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

Seems to be for 2012 hires.

no the link to pay rises will be cut for everyone

Riskymove

golfwallah wrote: »

Most private sector workers were already contributing towards the cost of their pensions, in firms that had such schemes or providing 100% for their own pensions in firms that didn't have schemes.

without being OTT, if your employer came to you and said that they were gonna make you pay an extra 7% salary towards a pension but that the actual pension you got wouldn't increase.....and oh by the way we won't actually use that 7% to invest in your pension...we'll use it to pay for a new company building......what would you think?

antoobrien

gazzer wrote: »

There is a MASSIVE difference though even taking the 'non permanent nature'. I will give my area as an example.

Civil Service IT Staff are getting a salary of between €25,000 to €62,000 (Depending on Grade and length of service)

The salary scale for the contractors is €110,000 to €130,000.

These contracts are for 18 months with an option to extend.

TBH sounds like they are offering lower rates than private sector rates. I know of a company in Cork that were paying €500 per day (equivalent to 110k allowing 6 weeks off and no holiday or sick pay, which is afaik is standard for private contracting) in 2010.

gazzer wrote: »

As somebody who is responsible for drafting the tenders and evaluating them for contractor staff I can 100% say that we have had the same contractors for the last 6 years. When we go to tender we get a LOT of expressions of interest but when it comes to the actual applications come in we are lucky if we get 2. From feedback we have gotten the reason for the lack of responses is because the money been offered is too low.

If the role is Dublin based, yeah it's too low.

gazzer wrote: »

Myself and other Civil Service IT staff has asked to be trained up to do the work of these contractors. Obviously it is not something you can learn overnight but I have been asking for the last 6 years.

Yeah so you can retire early and then go contracting. Not even civil service management is that stupid.

gazzer wrote: »

One of the contractors gets paid the same as 3 staff at my level and grade. Its crazy the amount of money been spent.

It might seem so in the short term, but longer term it's buttons as unless you've drawn up a contract that screws the company, the contract bears all other costs.

antoobrien

Riskymove wrote: »

no the link to pay rises will be cut for everyone

Unless this has been superseded, then you're wrong.

Current public servants will remain in their various current ‘final salary’ superannuation schemes and will not be affected by the new career average system, which only applies to new entrants. However since few new public servants are being recruited at the moment, due to a public sector recruitment moratorium, the effect of the new scheme in the short-term will be minimal.

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2011/10/articles/ie1110029i.htm

noodler

I am a new entrant so sadly I have :

- the career average earnings despite being better qualfiied than many at or below my grade and new recruits who joined as recently as 2012. It is my understanding that index-linked is also just for the 1% of new entrants who joined from 2013 onwards.

- New combined pay scales which are worse than the new entrant pay scales (which in turn were worse than the pay sclaes for pre-2011 staff).

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

Unless this has been superseded, then you're wrong.



http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2011/10/articles/ie1110029i.htm

thats the "final salary vs average salary" bit

the increases in the pension is a different measure which will be applying to everyone

Brian lenihan announced it some time ago but they have not implemented yet because, as I mentioned, they'd have to start now. Instead they are leaving the status quo becuase there are no pay rises and therefore no increases to pensions

as soon as it makes financial sense they will announce a cut in the link

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah so you can retire early and then go contracting. Not even civil service management is that stupid.

unless you are over 50 you'd have to resign

retiring early is really only an option where a particular deal is offered

gazzer

antoobrien wrote: »

Yeah so you can retire early and then go contracting. Not even civil service management is that stupid.

You cant retire early. You can leave the job of course but you cant retire until you hit retirement age.

srsly78

gazzer wrote: »

There is a MASSIVE difference though even taking the 'non permanent nature'. I will give my area as an example.

Civil Service IT Staff are getting a salary of between €25,000 to €62,000 (Depending on Grade and length of service)

The salary scale for the contractors is €110,000 to €130,000.

These contracts are for 18 months with an option to extend. As somebody who is responsible for drafting the tenders and evaluating them for contractor staff I can 100% say that we have had the same contractors for the last 6 years. When we go to tender we get a LOT of expressions of interest but when it comes to the actual applications come in we are lucky if we get 2. From feedback we have gotten the reason for the lack of responses is because the money been offered is too low.

These are the rates the contracting companies charge, not necessarily the rates the individuals get. The service company that wins the contract will usually take 15%-50% of that money. Also consider that the individual contractor suffers many of the downsides of self-employment, class-A prsi, no PAYE tax credit, accountancy fees etc. Yes they are well paid, but not quite as well as everyone thinks.

The public sector could simply employ IT professionals themselves and bypass these service companies, but no such positions are advertised (no experienced professional is going to sign up for e25000).

kippy

srsly78 wrote: »

These are the rates the contracting companies charge, not necessarily the rates the individuals get. The service company that wins the contract will usually take 15%-50% of that money. Also consider that the individual contractor suffers many of the downsides of self-employment, class-A prsi, no PAYE tax credit, accountancy fees etc. Yes they are well paid, but not quite as well as everyone thinks.

The public sector could simply employ IT professionals themselves and bypass these service companies, but no such positions are advertised (no experienced professional is going to sign up for e25000).

This is a big point and something I have seen a lot of.
A lot of public service workers' particularly in the IT sector only interaction with IT workers in the private sector is with contractors.
Contractors salaries are generally nowhere near what the headline rate is. They also, generally have extremely specialist skills.
I'd ask why public sector IT workers don't move over to the contracting roles IF the conditions are so attractive.......

There are many IT jobs in the private sector that don't pay anywhere close to some of the roles in the public sector.

kippy

gazzer wrote: »

There is a MASSIVE difference though even taking the 'non permanent nature'. I will give my area as an example.

Civil Service IT Staff are getting a salary of between €25,000 to €62,000 (Depending on Grade and length of service)

The salary scale for the contractors is €110,000 to €130,000.

These contracts are for 18 months with an option to extend. As somebody who is responsible for drafting the tenders and evaluating them for contractor staff I can 100% say that we have had the same contractors for the last 6 years. When we go to tender we get a LOT of expressions of interest but when it comes to the actual applications come in we are lucky if we get 2. From feedback we have gotten the reason for the lack of responses is because the money been offered is too low.

Myself and other Civil Service IT staff has asked to be trained up to do the work of these contractors. Obviously it is not something you can learn overnight but I have been asking for the last 6 years. One of the contractors gets paid the same as 3 staff at my level and grade. Its crazy the amount of money been spent.

The amount of money paid to contractors in general is crazy.
But two or three things necessitate their use (from what I can see) and tbf this would depend on the area they are contracting in:
1. The hiring freeze on permanent staff. This is as it is.
2. The sometimes short term nature of a specific project were a very limited but specialised skill set is needed for a short period of time. Sometimes it just aint worth "training someone up" for a specialised piece of work. However some of the Project Management and Business Process' are so poor in the public sector that a lot of these "short term" projects end up in development and indeed maintenance stage for far to long, leading to the issues you may have encountered.
3. The lack of suitable qualified and experienced staff in house. This is a major issue in the public sector. From what I have seen IT staff are not always coming from a background of IT. They may have no formal qualifications in it and are essentially pulled from the business. The grade itself determines your "suitability" for the role, not the role requirements. Then you have the issues of "training". Training is all well and good but to be of major value you need to have experience also. You don't tend to gain much experience in the Public sector, you need to spend some time moving around in employment to gain that.

barneystinson

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Labour party minister Brendan Howlin announces that some of the Public Sector pay cuts implemented over the past number of years will be reversed. No details of which ones or when exactly this will happen.



Is there really any merit for this at a time when the budget is still being adjusted to try and make expenditure match income?

Is this a political stunt by the Labour party in the runup to the 2016 general election to match Michael Noonan's talks about cutting income tax?

link

I think the 1,000th post is a good time to go back to the OP, especially since Fliball seemed to believe somehow he had "won" the argument, by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge how stats work.

I do agree with one thing he said though, which is that the thread is effectively pointless and should be closed. But for a different reason.

Howlin said that the Govt will have to enter talks with PS unions next year about what will happen when HRA ends. That's just common sense, everyone should welcome that happening. We can, and will, disagree about what the outcome should be but it'd be very foolhardy at this stage to reckon that the Govt should just let HRA expire without having agreed what comes after.

I think I'm done with this thread now, since it seems to have delved off into the usual old chestnuts.