Benchmakring III without the comparison

Larbre34

^exactly as Quin says.

If the parties believed there was nothing in it, they wouldn't waste resources on it. All you need is to corral a decent percentage, it means a lot to a smaller party in a marginal constituency.

relax carry on

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Of course..it's not like they operate a whip system or something...

But surely you'd have to concede that having the union endorse a specific party or candidate could be quite influential on a significant number of people?

I can only speak from experience if the PSEU. No one I know pays a blind bit of notice to what the union says. Most are in the union because it's what you do and the perceived benefits of collective bargaining power. The only ones who take it in anyway serious are some of the union reps.
On a related note, if any of the groups or organisations you are a member of or have an interest in said please vote for candidate or party X, would you do it?

Quin_Dub

relax carry on wrote: »

I can only speak from experience if the PSEU. No one I know pays a blind bit of notice to what the union says. Most are in the union because it's what you do and the perceived benefits of collective bargaining power. The only ones who take it in anyway serious are some of the union reps.
On a related note, if any of the groups or organisations you are a member of or have an interest in said please vote for candidate or party X, would you do it?

Personally - No , certainly not it is was just a plain "Vote for X" note..

But if it was a note framed in terms of "Vote for X, because X is the only one that will support our aims, or don't vote for Y because Y wants to shaft us over this issue or that issue" - Then I can absolutely see how some people that were undecided, could be influenced one way or the other..

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

This again. The last time you made this claim I pointed out the fundamental flaw in your argument. This argument only works if you assume the private sector is a closed system, which it is not. If a company closes down in Cork and 50 people are made redundant on the same day that a new company opens up in Dublin and hires 50 new people; the CSO will record this as 0 jobs lost despite the fact that 50 people in Cork are still redundant.

Similarly, when a person is redeployed within the public sector a job is lost in say the Department of Education but gained in the Department of Justice.

Your example is redeployment private sector way, a harsher form of redeployment public sector way. But the stats tell the correct overall story.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

A lot of these productivity aspects were half baked at best, more designed to achieve the appearance of everyone "giving something" than actually improving the delivery of services.

Two and a quarter hours a week extra work from everyone in the public service not half-baked.

kippy

Godge wrote: »

Similarly, when a person is redeployed within the public sector a job is lost in say the Department of Education but gained in the Department of Justice.

Your example is redeployment private sector way, a harsher form of redeployment public sector way. But the stats tell the correct overall story.







Two and a quarter hours a week extra work from everyone in the public service not half-baked.

Tbf godge no one actually gets made redundant in your example.

Godge

kippy wrote: »

Tbf godge no one actually gets made redundant in your example.

That is true but go back to the original point of the conversation.

From peak to trough, private sector lost 11%, and from peak to trough public sector lost 10%.

Sarumite made the fair point that those stats masked the fact that private sector jobs lost in Cork could be offset by jobs gained in Dublin so the figure of 11% was net job losses in the private sector rather than gross job losses. I was only pointing out that the public sector used redeployment to deal with such issues.

From the point of view of ordinary worker's rights, through a combination of retirements, voluntary redundancy, non-renewal of temporary contracts and redeployment, the public sector handled the crisis in a much more humane way than the private sector but still managed to get a similar outcome in terms of net jobs lost. That should be a reason for praising the public sector rather than criticising it.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Godge wrote: »

From peak to trough, private sector lost 11%, and from peak to trough public sector lost 10%.

However, public sector didnt lose numbers same way private sector did.

The public sector numbers are red herring as alot of those (outside of temp contracts not being renewed) would have been retirements and crucially people like me would be included in that figure also.

In other words in the next 1-3 years that public service number is going to massively reverse not even taking into account any additional recruitment.

Icepick

Now is the time to invest in infrastructure instead of wasting precious and limited public resources on blind salary increases.
Property is picking up, which will lead to increased costs. The government should invest as much money as possible into Metro North, refurbishment of schools, police stations and so on. This will benefit those public servant working in old buildings much more than a small salary increase.
Of course that would not help the union pursuing their own myopic goals.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Icepick wrote: »

The government should invest as much money as possible into Metro North, refurbishment of schools, police stations and so on. This will benefit those public servant working in old buildings much more than a small salary increase.

Of course that would not help the union pursuing their own myopic goals.

Not sure about Metro North, but schools are being built and refurbished nationwide on an already well published schedule, Garda stations are very modern buildings already despite what they might look like from the outside / public counter side.

In fact I can't remember the last time I was in a non modern civil service office in general

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

That is true but go back to the original point of the conversation.

From peak to trough, private sector lost 11%, and from peak to trough public sector lost 10%.

Sarumite made the fair point that those stats masked the fact that private sector jobs lost in Cork could be offset by jobs gained in Dublin so the figure of 11% was net job losses in the private sector rather than gross job losses. I was only pointing out that the public sector used redeployment to deal with such issues.

From the point of view of ordinary worker's rights, through a combination of retirements, voluntary redundancy, non-renewal of temporary contracts and redeployment, the public sector handled the crisis in a much more humane way than the private sector but still managed to get a similar outcome in terms of net jobs lost. That should be a reason for praising the public sector rather than criticising it.

Redundancy and redeployment are two completely different things. Your analogy is utter nonsense. surely even you can see the fallacy of what your writing?

Of course they had the luxury of being 'humane'. The government has a de-facto monopoly on many essential services which are run in non-proft manner in a non-competitive environment and funded through mandatory taxation. (please, stop with the nonsense about net jobs. As I pointed out, your argument is so fundamentally flawed)

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Redundancy and redeployment are two completely different things. Your analogy is utter nonsense. surely even you can see the fallacy of what your writing?

Of course they had the luxury of being 'humane'. The government has a de-facto monopoly on many essential services which are run in non-proft manner in a non-competitive environment and funded through mandatory taxation. (please, stop with the nonsense about net jobs. As I pointed out, your argument is so fundamentally flawed)

You can't argue with the facts. The size of the private sector decreased by 11%, the size of the public sector decreased by 10%. Net job losses across both sectors were broadly similar.

One point I forgot to make is that the make-up of the health services changed dramatically over the period since the crisis with the number of consultants increasing and the number of nurses decreasing. Many contract nurses lost their jobs and went abroad. Very similar to the way the private sector restructured.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

Redundancy and redeployment are two completely different things. Your analogy is utter nonsense. surely even you can see the fallacy of what your writing?

Of course they had the luxury of being 'humane'. The government has a de-facto monopoly on many essential services which are run in non-proft manner in a non-competitive environment and funded through mandatory taxation. (please, stop with the nonsense about net jobs. As I pointed out, your argument is so fundamentally flawed)

Leaving aside all the fancy dancing around redundancy and redeployment and open and closed systems do you think that the reported reduction in PS numbers is also a nonsense and that maybe its just a conspiracy by the public sector to try and calm the private sector .. ah sure lads public sector numbers are falling nearly as fast as in the private sector!.

By the way while in the main redundancy is very difficult for people, its not universally so. Quite a few people I know have used it to get out of jobs they didn't like with a nice volundary redundancy package allowing them to stay at home with the kids or move to their 'dream' job. Each to their own. But of course the narrative must always be - all in private sector have been hammered while all in the PS are sucking on the golden teat.

Tiger Mcilroy

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Not sure about Metro North, but schools are being built and refurbished nationwide on an already well published schedule, Garda stations are very modern buildings already despite what they might look like from the outside / public counter side.

In fact I can't remember the last time I was in a non modern civil service office in general

I can categorically say this is not the case, have you been garda headquarters for example..its an archaic building that bears no resemblance to a modern building.

Larbre34

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I can categorically say this is not the case, have you been garda headquarters for example..its an archaic building that bears no resemblance to a modern building.

No, so we'll demolish it. Take the GPO, Government Buildings and the Custom House while you're at it. Garda HQ has modern developments on its campus, Ive been inside it and it integrates very well. A huge national HQ isnt needed as the regions and divisions have their own offices.

Its all very well for people to say they want urgent work done on new and refurbished public buildings and schools without the requisite staff to design and build them. Do they realise how busy OPW actually are? And this is after they lost most of their corporate experience and knowledge base to early retirement

Tiger Mcilroy

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, so we'll demolish it. Take the GPO, Government Buildings and the Custom House while you're at it. Garda HQ has modern developments on its campus, Ive been inside it and it integrates very well. A huge national HQ isnt needed as the regions and divisions have their own offices.

Its all very well for people to say they want urgent work done on new and refurbished public buildings and schools without the requisite staff to design and build them. Do they realise how busy OPW actually are? And this is after they lost most of their corporate experience and knowledge base to early retirement

Where did i say demolish garda HQ, is it the case in this thread that any criticism is met with absurd replies about demolishing goverment buildings?.

The modern developements you speak of, are these the prefabs in the front courtyard that face out onto the road or the delapidated ones stacked one on top of the other at the rear of the building where large portions of the the IT work is done?

Garda HQ is an example of a building (rabbit warren) that has been left for decades with little or no improvements by successive goverments and the OPW could surely have spared a few workers over twenty years but sure lets shut down any debate on this with the usual vague arguments about resources.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

I can categorically say this is not the case, have you been garda headquarters for example..its an archaic building that bears no resemblance to a modern building.

Which part would that be fleet , commissioners block , it or finance?

They are all very modern interiors while outside looks dated due to it being a listed site

Ctrl Alt Delete

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

Where did i say demolish garda HQ, is it the case in this thread that any criticism is met with absurd replies about demolishing goverment buildings?.

The modern developements you speak of, are these the prefabs in the front courtyard that face out onto the road or the delapidated ones stacked one on top of the other at the rear of the building where large portions of the the IT work is done?

Garda HQ is an example of a building (rabbit warren) that has been left for decades with little or no improvements by successive goverments and the OPW could surely have spared a few workers over twenty years but sure lets shut down any debate on this with the usual vague arguments about resources.

That site has had significant work done. Including massive drainage works and those prefabs are admin definitely not where the main it work is done apart from hardware around the back. Also because it's a listed site prefabs are only way it can be expanded without masses upon masses on hoops to jump through

Tiger Mcilroy

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Which part would that be fleet , commissioners block , it or finance?

They are all very modern interiors while outside looks dated due to it being a listed site

In the interests of clarity, i have worked in garda HQ in the past and can categorically state that the word "modern" is not how i would describe the interior of the buildings.

What you are saying is wrong, its that simple and more effort is put into the coffee facilities in the (dry) canteen than the IT services stuck out the back so claiming that the insides are "modern" is nonsense.

When people make claims against the public service on here they get shut down....pity the same cant be said for the defenders talking nonsense.

Icepick

A new Garda divisional HQ will actually be built

But when I went to the Santry station, I thought I travelled to the 70s for example. Loads of schools are also antic. Refurbishing them is also a good opportunity to secularize them and take them from the grip of the Catholic Church.

glacial_pace71

Icepick wrote: »

A new Garda divisional HQ will actually be built

But when I went to the Santry station, I thought I travelled to the 70s for example. Loads of schools are also antic. Refurbishing them is also a good opportunity to secularize them and take them from the grip of the Catholic Church.

The problem is that the PPP bundles for schools have proven to be quite an expensive way of getting the necessary infrastructure. (Of course some will argue that it keep employment up in the construction industry and so the net costs aren't as great).

Re Santry Garda station? Ugly alright, and it now takes on Whitehall's duties. However, that brings up a useful point re Garda Districts in Dublin, e.g. Raheny doesn't cover much of Raheny, as it was just fields when the divisions were drawn up, hence Coolock having responsibility for much of the area. However, redistricting would affect the number of Superintendents and District Officers. Reform in the criminal justice area need not always be about closing district courts that are a few miles apart.

Re the RC grip on education? The constitution still defines parents as the primary educators of the child. They've a constitutional baseball bat with which to whack the State any time it takes too much of an interest in ownership. Consequently the State sets the standards for teachers and for school buildings, it funds the capital cost of school buildings, it pays the teachers' salaries (and manages their payroll on behalf of schools) but schools remain under the ownership of their patron body (usually a religious order).

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

Leaving aside all the fancy dancing around redundancy and redeployment and open and closed systems do you think that the reported reduction in PS numbers is also a nonsense and that maybe its just a conspiracy by the public sector to try and calm the private sector .. ah sure lads public sector numbers are falling nearly as fast as in the private sector!.

Why would I think that?

By the way while in the main redundancy is very difficult for people, its not universally so. Quite a few people I know have used it to get out of jobs they didn't like with a nice volundary redundancy package allowing them to stay at home with the kids or move to their 'dream' job. Each to their own. But of course the narrative must always be - all in private sector have been hammered while all in the PS are sucking on the golden teat.

ok

glacial_pace71

sarumite wrote: »

Why would I think that?

ok

There have been redundancies in the public sector, e.g. see the messy situation with Special Needs Assistants (SNAs). No-one wants to see them become part of the permanent staffing complement of a school, as they'd end up becoming some sort of classroom assistant to teachers rather than being dedicated support for children with special needs.
Naturally some diagnoses at the lower end of the spectrum (e.g. certain learning needs) can see the SNA become superfluous as the child develops. In other cases, e.g. take the distressing example of a child with terminal illness in transition from classroom to home tuition, the SNA will also be lost.
The problem is that many schools have regarded the SNA hours allocated as being "theirs" and not that of the children.
The problem with with redundancy system is that it gave way to a compensatory arrangement, e.g. an SNA loses 90% of her hours and is then paid 'compensation' which is taxable rather than 'redundancy', which is not. So the money notionally goes to the SNA but is taken back by Revenue, i.e. there's little/no cost to the State for 'compensation'.
However, overall the system has given a good degree of flexibility. The big fear in the civil service, and in the much of the teaching profession, was that there'd become an expectation on behalf of certain schools (teachers, principals, parents) that they'd hold onto SNAs regardless of what children had come or gone, and that the SNA would become the latest Jimmy Choos or Hermes bag that no teacher could be without, e.g. teachers would be expected to lobby for a resource that their classroom might well need but which was certainly no longer needed on the basis that it was originally granted.
The redeployment doesn't see someone in Malin move to Mizen, so the constant churning of gains and losses around the country does offer a high degree of flexibility.
Details of scheme:
http://www.education.ie/en/Education-Staff/Information/SNA-Redundancy/

Ok, lengthy post, but the point had been made by the other poster that there were net losses in the pubic sector. I'm just adding some info on one small aspect of redundancy within the public sector. (Several SNAs will secure short term work in the private sector between spells of employment and unemployment in the education system).
Btw, as someone who has worked in public and private sector, and has been self employed, I do know that there have been plenty of cases in the past few years of people being made redundant in the private sector and securing work in the public sector. There aren't two separate closed systems.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0602/705403-ahcps/


Getting back on topic, I knew this deal favoured the lower-paid but

"It has been estimated that between 2016 and 2018, a Government employee on €30,000 will receive a pay rise of €2,170 (7.2%), a worker on €60,000 will have a pay hike of €1,895 (3.2%) while a public servant on €100,000 will see an increase of €1,000 or 1%."

Considering the higher-paid got the biggest cut, that is quite a surprise. You can only imagine it is because there is an election.

I would imagine that is because most in the PS on €70K+ are over paid in the first instance. Furthermore, everyone will benefit with the reduction in tax rates.

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

I would imagine that is because most in the PS on €70K+ are over paid in the first instance. Furthermore, everyone will benefit with the reduction in tax rates.

You would imagine?
So now this forums allow imaginations as facts???

luckyboy

Rightwing wrote: »

I would imagine that is because most in the PS on €70K+ are over paid in the first instance.

I think you'll find it's the opposite. The current €200k ceiling on public sector pay percolates downwards so that a public sector manager responsible for say 500 staff generally earns far less than his private sector equivalent ...

Rightwing

luckyboy wrote: »

I think you'll find it's the opposite. The current €200k ceiling on public sector pay percolates downwards so that a public sector manager responsible for say 500 staff generally earns far less than his private sector equivalent ...

As the PS folk love to say:

Links
Evidence

luckyboy

Rightwing wrote: »

As the PS folk love to say:

Links
Evidence

Notice I said the word "equivalent". Okay, smarty-pants. If we equate a Secretary General in a Government Dept (the highest grade a civil servant can reach) to a CEO of a private company. How many CEOs with responsibility for thousands of workers are on a mere €200k? Very few, I'd venture. Hell, in the aircraft leasing company I did my Co-op in, I'd say the average salary is close to €200k. An atypical example, I know. But the top public sector managers are also atypical, not that their pay reflects that.

Rightwing

luckyboy wrote: »

Notice I said the word "equivalent". Okay, smarty-pants. If we equate a Secretary General in a Government Dept (the highest grade a civil servant can reach) to a CEO of a private company. How many CEOs with responsibility for thousands of workers are on a mere €200k? Very few, I'd venture. Hell, in the aircraft leasing company I did my Co-op in, I'd say the average salary is close to €200k. An atypical example, I know. But the top public sector managers are also atypical, not that their pay reflects that.

That must be a myth you read in a Junior Cert text book. No one has responsibility 'for thousands of workers'. Now, there may be thousands of workers in a workplace, but that's not to say 1 chap is responsible for everyone. As an example: the CEO of Tesco wouldn't exactly be responsible for everyone in the organisation.

PeteFalk78

Rightwing wrote: »

That must be a myth you read in a Junior Cert text book. No one has responsibility 'for thousands of workers'. Now, there may be thousands of workers in a workplace, but that's not to say 1 chap is responsible for everyone. As an example: the CEO of Tesco wouldn't exactly be responsible for everyone in the organisation.

The provost of Trinity College is on 191,000 a year
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/trinity-ordered-to-slash-salary-of-provost-26708241.html

He is responsible for nearly 3000 staff
https://www.tcd.ie/Communications/Facts/staff-numbers.php

The CEO of EBS is on 380,000 a year
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1117/308849-ebs/

He is responsible for 400 staff
http://www.thejournal.ie/ebs-building-society-job-losses-774837-Jan2013/

Who has the better deal here rightwing? And before you return with some prejudiced claptrap....please attempt to back it up (like I did above)

Sheldons Brain

Rightwing wrote: »

I would imagine that is because most in the PS on €70K+ are over paid in the first instance.

You have a vivid imagination, is it chemically induced?

glacial_pace71

If it helps at all, here are the Health Sector grades for which the HSE has responsibility, i.e. hospitals and related institutions can't breach these salary scales:
http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Benefits_Services/pay/July%202013.pdf

Starting alphabetically you can see that the Area Medical Officers were really savaged in terms of the FEMPI cuts. However, to cap their pay at €70k would mean stopping at the €70,330 point on the scale, which is reached after 6 years. (Actually it takes longer than that if the Govt can - and do - intervene to stop/start incremental salary scale progression). The last two points on the scale are marked in bold, which means that they're LSIs, i.e. awarded after 3 years and 6 years after reaching the €70,330 point of the scale, or 9-12 years service as an Area Medical Officer.
The AMOs are now known as Community Health Doctors (CHDs) in certain regions of the country, dealing with everything from administering the immunisation programmes in an area to delivering primary care services. They don't do it for the money but if they were told that €70k is the new ceiling then I think you'd find that they'd take the agency work for €100k+ per annum from the various private companies used in the health system. They'd end up doing less public service hours for considerably more pay.
Similarly, on that same page, see the Community Ophthalmic Physician. They were already cut from €94k to €82k. To cut them to €70k would pretty much see the service end.

Rightwing

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

The provost of Trinity College is on 191,000 a year
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/trinity-ordered-to-slash-salary-of-provost-26708241.html

He is responsible for nearly 3000 staff
https://www.tcd.ie/Communications/Facts/staff-numbers.php

The CEO of EBS is on 380,000 a year
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1117/308849-ebs/

He is responsible for 400 staff
http://www.thejournal.ie/ebs-building-society-job-losses-774837-Jan2013/

Who has the better deal here rightwing? And before you return with some prejudiced claptrap....please attempt to back it up (like I did above)

I seriously hope this is a joke.

Gumbo

Rightwing wrote: »

I seriously hope this is a joke.

I imagine it could be........

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

I would imagine that is because most in the PS on €70K+ are over paid in the first instance. Furthermore, everyone will benefit with the reduction in tax rates.

you have a very active imagination and haven't read the thread.


The CSO find that the higher paid in the civil service are most underpaid.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

you have a very active imagination and haven't read the thread.


The CSO find that the higher paid in the civil service are most underpaid.

Arbitrary findings.

Like comparing a teacher to an actor and concluding that the teacher is grossly underpaid.

Sheldons Brain

Rightwing wrote: »

As the PS folk love to say:

Links
Evidence

Why don't you provide some evidence then, as you have made a contention.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

Arbitrary findings.

Like comparing a teacher to an actor and concluding that the teacher is grossly underpaid.

I will take CSO statistics over your imaginings any day. BTW, that was 2010 figures. Since then salaries have gone up in the private sector while there were further cuts in the public sector.

luckyboy

Rightwing wrote: »

That must be a myth you read in a Junior Cert text book. No one has responsibility 'for thousands of workers'. Now, there may be thousands of workers in a workplace, but that's not to say 1 chap is responsible for everyone. As an example: the CEO of Tesco wouldn't exactly be responsible for everyone in the organisation.

Two points: 1) Where are you going with this Junior Cert business? You are well able to criticise others. Why not lay your own quals out on the table and we'll see who is more qualified?!
2) What a pedantic and irrelevant point you make about "responsibility". I was referring to the most senior officer in an organisation. I would have thought such would be clear to such an educated person as yourself, whose studies clearly extend far beyond the Junior Cert you so casually dismiss ...

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

I will take CSO statistics over your imaginings any day. BTW, that was 2010 figures. Since then salaries have gone up in the private sector while there were further cuts in the public sector.

Perhaps it suits you to . Whereas Rightwing is totally objective and fair.

Comparing such salaries is arbitrary at best and utterly foolish and dangerous at worst. It boils down to whom one is answerable to: the shareholder/(stakeholder) v taxpayer and involves complex issues such as the agency theory problem. As both an institutional and private shareholder I know this well. Shareholders (institutional) are becoming more active and demanding. Taxpayers by and large are passive and ignorant of matters. However, this is not a reason to further exploit them.
For this reason, I disregard such CSO figures that were in all probability selective in the first instance.

luckyboy wrote: »

Two points: 1) Where are you going with this Junior Cert business? You are well able to criticise others. Why not lay your own quals out on the table and we'll see who is more qualified?!
2) What a pedantic and irrelevant point you make about "responsibility". I was referring to the most senior officer in an organisation. I would have thought such would be clear to such an educated person as yourself, whose studies clearly extend far beyond the Junior Cert you so casually dismiss ...

See above.

glacial_pace71

Rightwing wrote: »

Perhaps it suits you to . Whereas Rightwing is totally objective and fair.

Comparing such salaries is arbitrary at best and utterly foolish and dangerous at worst. It boils down to whom one is answerable to: the shareholder/(stakeholder) v taxpayer and involves complex issues such as the agency theory problem. As both an institutional and private shareholder I know this well. Shareholders (institutional) are becoming more active and demanding. Taxpayers by and large are passive and ignorant of matters. However, this is not a reason to further exploit them.
For this reason, I disregard such CSO figures that were in all probability selective in the first instance.

See above.

Rightwing, you need to calm down a little. The CSO is not some left-wing conspiracy, dreaming up nasty things like statistics, hard facts etc that could cause discomfort to settled prejudices.
The thread was titled "benchmarking" (well actually it was misspelt "benchmakring" by a right-wing poster) so the original intention was for it to have at least some comparative dimension in respect of remuneration.
On the matter of logic, and on the matter of accountability, you are posing your own teleological argument, making assumptions about inherent characteristics of what you call "taxpayers" and shareholders, before you even engage the issues of corporate governance etc.
Your posts will end up being ignored by people, whereas I presume that you had some point in engaging on the thread. Presumably your parents have worked hard to get you through what you now dismiss as your Junior Cert. When you grow up a little more and enter the workforce you'll have to consider issues such as academic qualifications versus life experience when balancing the management of any team: you'll need pit ponies and show ponies in any workplace. (I take it that you'd expect to hold a position of responsibility when you get older, given that any trust fund held in your name will become a portfolio you can actively manage when you achieve majority age. The term 'shareholder' will take on real meaning).
Why not volunteer an example of why, in an earlier post, you selected an arbitrary monetary amount as an inappropriate level of remuneration in the public sector? Why not volunteer a reason why you believe an office holder under the Public Service Management Act 1997 (the e.g. of the Secretary General provided by a previous poster), a position with responsibility for decision-making that affects billions in public expenditure, is overcompensated relative to the plain vanilla fund manager who tracks the market and eats/drinks his way through his bonus in London without any real accountability in the proper sense of the term?
This thread was intended to be comparative in nature but there have been precious few examples provided thus far from which any disinterested observer could evaluate. Try one, no need to be shy: the public sector workers on this thread are not out with torches and pitchforks for any poster with adverse comments, but are looking for useful examples that can be subjected to a proper talmudic debate.