Garda, nurses, teachers and doctor's pay

esforum

maryishere wrote: »

Well said. Many of the gardai I know just scraped through school, were far from being the kids on the block. A lot of the public sector are not that well qualified e.g. a lot of the army etc.

all 8000 soldiers arent educated? Really? Make blind accusations much do we?

Scraping through school is still a leaving cert m'dear. Scraping through college of still a degree.

A lot of the private sector wont be that well educated, ya know theres still people leaving school after their junior cert? Not to join the civil service they aint!

maryishere wrote: »

Esforum or others here still cannot explain why a secretary in the public service is paid more than a secretary in the private sector, why a vet in the public sector is paid more than a vet in the private sector, why an architect in the public sector is paid more than an architect in the private sector etc...and not only that, but the public sector ones have more security and pensions. In other countries the public service premium does not exist. Its a two tier society in Ireland, with the vast bulk of the private sector without a pension, and paying their taxes to the government, to support their employees with higher pay and pensions.

Ya know its funny but if anyone is bothered going through your post history, it shows a complet and utter lack of understanding. Time and time again you make claims about other nations and then are shot down completely. You didnt even know that the UK subsidised their precription drugs!

In other nations the public sector is considered even better and harder to get into it. They are prized jobs. Of course you will never prove your theory, just vanish for a day then come back and say it again.

maryishere wrote: »

As as said before, which you have not grasped yet:
what the experts did was compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc..and they found that overall " Even adjusted for education, skills and experience, we have a significant pay premium in the public sector, and that’s an issue that has to be part of the post-crisis discussion."
http://www.thejournal.ie/public-sect...37290-Aug2014/

I explained it well already, its called freedom of market. Different agencies pay different amounts for the same job. Why are they paid more? because thats the package on offer and in return they get thousands of applications and get in theory, the best candidate.

I will let you in on a secret, now dont tell anyone but McDonalds and BUrgerking and Supermacs dont jointly set their wage packages. even Lid and Aldi have different pay and perks packages for staff.

maryishere wrote: »

Even when you adjust for qualifications, experience and length of service, the public sector workers still enjoy a significant pay premium over their private sector counterparts,” Ibec economist Fergal O’Brien said
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/e...ctor-1.1907313

Its easier at this stage to quote myself than type it again:

esforum wrote: »

SO JOIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not all jobs even if they are equal make the same money.

Whats your education?
Whats your occupation?
Have you applied for the public sector?

You have been harping on now for over 3 years FFS. How many public sector jobs have been advertised in that time?

mulbot wrote: »

I still don't see how you can state two of the groups you mentioned are better educated than private sector educated workers...

show me where I said they were? Who would you like to compare Gardai to? Ok, lets do Mary's trick.

Gardai are required, just to get in, a leaving cert. They will qualify with a degree.

Bigmac maker in McDonalds do not require any level of education. They will have 1 star

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

A lot of the public sector are not that well qualified e.g. a lot of the army etc.

esforum wrote: »

all 8000 soldiers arent educated? Really? Make blind accusations much do we?

I said A LOT of the army are not that well educated....certainly not compared to private sector workers in most of the wealth creating sector of the economy, for example the tech and pharmceutical industries, offices , exporters, engineering industries etc.

Now you lie (again) and after I said a lot of the army, you accuse me of saying
"all 8000 soldiers arent educated?" and you add " Really? Make blind accusations much do we?"

You are nothing but a liar as evidenced above and the rest of your post contains more lies so is not worth replying to.

StringerBell

Tzardine wrote: »

As somebody that supervises them I can assure you its true. (they make more than me). . I will find something and edit this post later with it. On phone now.

Still no sign of these 800 a week jobs you spoke of I take it, being a full month since you made the claim with no post edit.

esforum

maryishere wrote: »

I said A LOT of the army are not that well educated....certainly not compared to private sector workers in most of the wealth creating sector of the economy, for example the tech and pharmceutical industries, offices , exporters, engineering industries etc.

Now you lie (again) and after I said a lot of the army, you accuse me of saying
"all 8000 soldiers arent educated?" and you add " Really? Make blind accusations much do we?"

You are nothing but a liar as evidenced above and the rest of your post contains more lies so is not worth replying to.

Ah this is just funny,

what does 'offices' mean? That can be anything!

Pharmaceutical? well does that include factory and warehouse workers? many of whom will have only a leaving witgh some not even that.

exporters? Like farmers export products? Exporters covers a huge range. even limiting it too the shipping and freight industry, thats an area that until about 15 years ago didnt even have a relevant degree course.

But we know you really want to compare the lab workers and engineers to soldiers dont you? So yes, engineers and lab techs would be higher edicated as a sector

they would also be on a much much larger salary!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh and yes they make money, so much money they pay their lab and engineering staff way about the averages along with their CEO's. Why not include banks, they are private sector arent they? Wasnt Drumm a provate sector employee? Didnt I take awage reduction so that the bank staff kept their jobs?

(oh and despite being a millionaire, he only had a leaving cert so pay way way more than ANYONE in public employment including the US president but also had the MINIMUM education standard to even apply for a public sector job)


Way to prove the point Mary :D:D:D:D

222233

steddyeddy wrote: »

The Luas driver's debate seems to bring up comparisons between the training involved and job difficulty and pay in the jobs in my title and the pay of Luas drivers.

I'm just wondering is there any job type that you think is overpaid or underpaid? I think the jobs in my title should be paid well as long as they're good at their job. I think carers and nurses should be paid more and I think hospital biochemists (the ones who test blood) should be paid a hell of a lot more (you can guarantee a strike will be in the works). Anyone else deserving of a pay rise?

The Luas pay is already at a good rate in my opinion.

I definitely agree with nurses being paid more, I also think consultants and GP's could be paid better for the sacrifices they make - Running a private clinic costs a huge amount of money hence why consultation fees are so high, give them a higher salary bring down consult costs.

Barry Badrinath

maryishere wrote: »

I said A LOT of the army are not that well educated....

Can you just elaborate on that point please.

maryishere

esforum wrote: »

Why not include banks, they are private sector arent they?

No, their jobs are guaranteed by the government, and answer to the government, you can say they are as good as public service jobs.

esforum wrote: »

Didnt I take awage reduction so that the bank staff kept their jobs?

You took a wage cut because everyone including your own unions realised your wages increased too much during the boom, and was not sustainable, and because your buddies in the Central bank and Dept of Finance and Regulators office (all public servants like you) did not do their job in running the economy / regulating the banks. But yes, your buddies the bank staff kept their jobs, which I believe they should not automatically have...I believe if some knew (during the tiger) that they could lose their jobs, they would not lent recklessly or excessively as much during the boom.

esforum

Wolf Hanssen wrote: »

Can you just elaborate on that point please.

no, of course she cant, she has just ben spitting venim for a fair few pages now as her absolute ignorance and hypocrisy has been exposed time and time again

222233

esforum wrote: »

GP's arent paid a salary, they are private practice.



no, of course she cant, she has just ben spitting venim for a fair few pages now as her absolute ignorance and hypocrisy has been exposed time and time again

I'm assuming they are paid for south doc services and medical card holders, same thing really ?

esforum

222233 wrote: »

The Luas pay is already at a good rate in my opinion.

I definitely agree with nurses being paid more, I also think consultants and GP's could be paid better for the sacrifices they make - Running a private clinic costs a huge amount of money hence why consultation fees are so high, give them a higher salary bring down consult costs.

GP's are self employed

KatW4

maryishere wrote:

Esforum or others here still cannot explain why a secretary in the public service is paid more than a secretary in the private sector, why a vet in the public sector is paid more than a vet in the private sector, why an architect in the public sector is paid more than an architect in the private sector etc...and not only that, but the public sector ones have more security and pensions. In other countries the public service premium does not exist. Its a two tier society in Ireland, with the vast bulk of the private sector without a pension, and paying their taxes to the government, to support their employees with higher pay and pensions.

Good God will you ever give it a rest with the public V private vet/architect etc... surely the public sector chooses what to pay their employees so take it up with them!

esforum

maryishere wrote: »

No, their jobs are guaranteed by the government, and answer to the government, you can say they are as good as public service jobs.


You took a wage cut because everyone including your own unions realised your wages increased too much during the boom, and was not sustainable, and because your buddies in the Central bank and Dept of Finance and Regulators office (all public servants like you) did not do their job in running the economy / regulating the banks. But yes, your buddies the bank staff kept their jobs, which I believe they should not automatically have...I believe if some knew (during the tiger) that they could lose their jobs, they would not lent recklessly or excessively as much during the boom.

wow. Keep em coming Mary, keep em coming. You are a peach:D:D:D

maryishere

Wolf Hanssen wrote: »

Can you just elaborate on that point please.

I said A LOT of the army are not that well educated....certainly not compared to private sector workers in most of the wealth creating sector of the economy, for example the tech and pharmceutical industries, offices , exporters, engineering industries etc.
That is not being disrespectful to the army : I know some people in the army have degrees, but like most armies worldwide I doubt if most soldiers would have degrees. I know there are some skilled and highly qualified jobs in the army but not all 8000 have degrees (Thank God, they probably would not be as good an army if they did!). Most of the best soldiers in the world never had degrees I bet.

esforum

222233 wrote: »

I'm assuming they are paid for south doc services and medical card holders, same thing really ?

no

222233

esforum wrote: »

no

No way? So they don't get anything at all for seeing medical card holders? That is absolutely ridiculous ..

esforum

222233 wrote: »

No way? So they don't get anything at all for seeing medical card holders? That is absolutely ridiculous ..

no its not the same as being paid a wage by the public sector. Who pays their consultancy fee doesnt change that they are self employed running their own businesses. By that logic SW payments to landlords are the same as being paid a public sector wage

maryishere

esforum wrote: »

.. her absolute ignorance

this coming from you, who only a few posts ago thought all the Irish banks were private sector! lol
And a few posts before that you were exposed for telling lies!

222233

esforum wrote: »

no its not the same as being paid a wage by the public sector. Who pays their consultancy fee doesnt change that they are self employed running their own businesses. By that logic SW payments to landlords are the same as being paid a public sector wage

Oh I understand so they do get something for seeing medical card holders?
Sorry off topic I know I always assumed that they were given a set fee a year for seeing M.Card patients or something.

esforum

maryishere wrote: »

this coming from you, who only a few posts ago thought all the Irish banks were private sector!

they are, even the nationalised ones are operating in the private sector. Governments are ectually not allowed run state banks within the EU

Now, I shall go get the popcorn, the Mary show is in full HD glory at the moment

esforum

222233 wrote: »

Oh I understand so they do get something for seeing medical card holders?
Sorry off topic I know I always assumed that they were given a set fee a year for seeing M.Card patients or something.

how does that equate to a wage or being state employees though, you said they get a wage presumable from the HSE, thats not true. They get an allowance per medical card on their books. Its pretty profitable if some of the stats are too be believed but like you say, a bit off topic

222233

esforum wrote: »

how does that equate to a wage or being state employees though, you said they get a wage presumable from the HSE, thats not true. They get an allowance per medical card on their books. Its pretty profitable if some of the stats are too be believed but like you say, a bit off topic

Yes I know my mistake I actually assumed that it was a wage they were receiving from the HSE.

evolving_doors

maryishere wrote: »

Thats good, because some posters would try to have you believe most people in the public sector are better qualified than those in the private sector.

Ahh look at the figures marywashere (Pg. 11,14). The number of public sector workers with 3rd level qualification in the public sector IS higher than the private sector. Hence why the average wage you quoted was higher... not because they are greedy/lazy/.. but because they are simply more qualified (as a whole sector), and also by it's very nature many of those public sector jobs require a 3rd level degree.


But I really like your own use of statistics:rolleyes:...

maryishere wrote: »

A lot of the public sector are not that well qualified e.g. a lot of the army etc.

and I'll counter that non-observation by saying that a lot of the private sector are not that well qualified either e.g. a lot of taxi drivers etc:pac:

maryishere

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ahh look at the figures marywashere (Pg. 11,14).

Those figures you quote are 7 years out of date. As David McWilliams said in his excellent article recently which was quoted from, your argument does not really apply nowadays.

And as said before, which you have not grasped yet:
what the experts did was compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc..and they found that overall " Even adjusted for education, skills and experience, we have a significant pay premium in the public sector, and that’s an issue that has to be part of the post-crisis discussion."
http://www.thejournal.ie/public-sect...37290-Aug2014/


“Even when you adjust for qualifications, experience and length of service, the public sector workers still enjoy a significant pay premium over their private sector counterparts,” Ibec economist Fergal O’Brien said
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/e...ctor-1.1907313

Cheese Wagstaff

To summarise...

1. Fergal O'Brien
2. Luckily soldiers are not intelligent, because they'd be terrible soldiers if they were.
3. Fergal O'Brien
4. I won't answer anything I'm asked, because it would cripple my baseless strawman argument.
5. Fergal O'Brien

maryishere

Had a bit much to drink, had you Cheese? Or what is your point?

Barry Badrinath

Maryishere,

Your comparison is sound but leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They may not be as well educated but they are educated. Just wanted to point that out as people automatically think soldiers are stupid and have no other job prospects.

New entrants generally only have the LC. As your career progresses, so does your education. Most career soldiers above Corporal rank have at a minimum, A Level 7 degree. Some have multiple degrees or a Masters, some all the way to Doctorates. Some have even lectured in various Universities and Colleges. In fact, they train other multinational troops in specialised areas.

For a profession that does not generally warrant a third level education, the drive and opportunity to achieve one is there. There are more with them, than without them, at least 55-60% have Level 7+.

Furthermore, I would wager that the very basic skills and values learned in the Defence Forces transfer well on transition to the Private Sector. Leadership, discipline, responsibility, cognitive thinking, teamwork, attention to detail, analytical reasoning, communication, etc. The days of the stereotypical "dumb grunt" are floundering.

My point is, you can't be stupid in the Defence Forces, there's no room for it so don't be using it as the "dumb dumb" of the work force in your points.

I don't even know what to say to this...."Thank God, they probably would not be as good an army if they did!)"

maryishere

Wolf Hanssen wrote: »

Your comparison is sound but leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They may not be as well educated but they are educated. Just wanted to point that out as people automatically think soldiers are stupid and have no other job prospects.

I never said they were not educated. I said I know some people in the army have degrees, but like most armies worldwide I doubt if most soldiers would have degrees. I never thought soldiers are stupid and have no other job prospects.

Cheese Wagstaff

maryishere wrote: »

Had a bit much to drink, had you Cheese? Or what is your point?

The point is, over the course of this thread there have been several reasoned and logical examples provided as a counter to your argument. In turn, you still use the same articles as crutches even though they have been shown to not be as strong in proving your point. You have also been asked questions, and you refuse to answer them, instead name dropping David McWilliams and Fergal O'Brien ad nauseam, as if it will make people arguing against you forget what they asked.

Now granted, you don't necessarily have to answer these questions. However by doing so, it would possibly add credibility to what you are saying. Everybody else seems more than happy to try and justify their position, yet you don't. Which overall, makes your pontification seem somewhat flimsy.

maryishere

Cheese Wagstaff wrote: »

T You have also been asked questions, and you refuse to answer them.

I have not only answered questions but given links to back up facts. Now, how about you answer a question: why, if you compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc., is the public sector one not just considerably better paid on average, despite being the one having better job security and better pension?

evolving_doors

maryishere wrote: »

I have not only answered questions but given links to back up facts. Now, how about you answer a question: why, if you compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc., is the public sector one not just considerably better paid on average, despite being the one having better job security and better pension?

And why would that be?

mulbot

esforum wrote: »

all 8000 soldiers arent educated? Really? Make blind accusations much do we?

Scraping through school is still a leaving cert m'dear. Scraping through college of still a degree.

A lot of the private sector wont be that well educated, ya know theres still people leaving school after their junior cert? Not to join the civil service they aint!



Ya know its funny but if anyone is bothered going through your post history, it shows a complet and utter lack of understanding. Time and time again you make claims about other nations and then are shot down completely. You didnt even know that the UK subsidised their precription drugs!

In other nations the public sector is considered even better and harder to get into it. They are prized jobs. Of course you will never prove your theory, just vanish for a day then come back and say it again.



I explained it well already, its called freedom of market. Different agencies pay different amounts for the same job. Why are they paid more? because thats the package on offer and in return they get thousands of applications and get in theory, the best candidate.

I will let you in on a secret, now dont tell anyone but McDonalds and BUrgerking and Supermacs dont jointly set their wage packages. even Lid and Aldi have different pay and perks packages for staff.



Its easier at this stage to quote myself than type it again:





show me where I said they were? Who would you like to compare Gardai to? Ok, lets do Mary's trick.

Gardai are required, just to get in, a leaving cert. They will qualify with a degree.

Bigmac maker in McDonalds do not require any level of education. They will have 1 star

Post number 1238,page 83 is where you said it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulbot
What professions are you referring to? A lot of public sector employees don't even have third level education.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mulbot
Such as?

Gardai, nurses, doctors, solicitors, paramedics, teachers.

maryishere

Gebgbegb wrote: »

And why would that be?

To give you some inkling:
Irish public service salaries rose by 59% in the five years from 2001 to 2006 alone, and the payroll then expanded in those years alone by 38,000 extra staff.
Average industrial wage rise in the period was 19%

The public service pensions bill has increased from €876m in 2001 to €1,588m in 2006 representing an 81.3% increase over the period.

In the Celtic tiger period,Taoiseach Bertie Ahern wanted to buy off the public service unions, whatever the price and as a man whose job before entering politics was an administrator in a Dublin hospital, he had not the exposure of life in an unprotected private sector company.

Do not forget in December 2000, a Public Service Benchmarking Body, established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF), was asked to undertake a fundamental examination of the pay of public service employees vis-a-vis the private sector. Former Davy Stockbrokers' economist Jim O'Leary was a member of the body for a period but he resigned before it reported.

In 2004, O'Leary who had joined the Department of Economics at Maynooth University, published with two of his colleagues, the results of six months' rigorous and painstaking research into public-private sector pay differentials in Ireland - Public-Private Wage Differentials in Ireland, G.Boyle, R.McElligott and J.O'Leary, ESRI Quarterly Economic Commentary, Summer 2004.

O'Leary and his colleagues wanted to discover whether similar people in similar employment circumstances were better or worse off working in the public than in the private sector. In order to do this, they had to control for attributes like age, experience, gender and education, and also for job characteristics like occupation, type of contract and size of establishment.

As the CSO data does not permit this kind of analysis, the dataset that they had to use is one based on a large-scale survey conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and used for much of its research into poverty and inequality.

The core finding was that on average, public servants earned 13 per cent more than their private sector counterparts on a like-for-like basis in 2001. The researchers also discovered that the size of this margin (the public sector premium) in 2001 was not significantly different from what it had been in 1994, suggesting that pay increases in the public sector had kept pace with the private sector throughout the Celtic Tiger period.

Another discovery was that the margin by which public service workers outearned their private sector counterparts tended to be significantly larger at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top.

A particularly striking finding was that the estimate of the public sector premium for Ireland was more than twice as large as the available estimates for other countries.

The Public Sector Benchmarking Body recommended pay increases which averaged 9 per cent across the grades examined and cost €1.2 billion a year. Government Departments introduced aspirational targets for staff that would make a laughing stock of a manager in the private sector who emulated the farcical exercise.

O'Leary said that the Public Sector Benchmarking Body never published its research results and at no stage in its 278-page report did it explicitly state or opine that public sector pay had fallen behind that in the private sector.

Ministers, other politicians and all living former employees of the Irish public service received special payments.

During the Celtic tiger, Davy Stockbrokers said that Irish public sector pay is on average around 120 percent of private sector earnings, having risen from 113 percent in the previous five years.

The biggest fraud of all was that the Benchmarking Body did not take any account of the unique public pension scheme, never mind the issue of job security.

Little CuChulainn

maryishere wrote: »

I have not only answered questions but given links to back up facts. Now, how about you answer a question: why, if you compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc., is the public sector one not just considerably better paid on average, despite being the one having better job security and better pension?

Because people in the private sector get paid on a much greater, less rigid, scale than people in the public sector and their salaries deviate a great deal more from the mean than those in the public sector. Yeah you could find an architect making money more money in the public sector than in the private, but I bet you can just as easily find one in the private sector making more than any of his public sector counterparts.

maryishere

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Because people in the private sector get paid on a much greater, less rigid, scale than people in the public sector and their salaries deviate a great deal more from the mean than those in the public sector. Yeah you could find an architect making money more money in the public sector than in the private, but I bet you can just as easily find one in the private sector making more than any of his public sector counterparts.

Thats why the research was conducted on thousands of people, not just one or two. And while you may if you were very lucky find an architect (seeing as you mention architects) in the private sector making more than his or her equivalent in the public sector, you have to go by averages. Check with the RIAI. Or any architect you know. Up to 50% of them lost their jobs since the crash so you may have a job finding one. And try to find one from the private sector who has a pension equivalent to a public sector pension. They will laugh at you.
It takes 7 to 8 years to qualify as an architect. If you google it, you will see that a few graduates are starting to get jobs again in Ireland. It says, according to Hays Recruitment," the typical salary for a graduate architect in the greater Dublin area is € 24,000 and € 20,000 in other parts of Ireland."

Little CuChulainn

maryishere wrote: »

Thats why the research was conducted on thousands of people, not just one or two. And while you may if you were very lucky find an architect (seeing as you mention architects) in the private sector making more than his or her equivalent in the public sector, you have to go by averages. Check with the RIAI. Or any architect you know. Up to 50% of them lost their jobs since the crash so you may have a job finding one. And try to find one from the private sector who has a pension equivalent to a public sector pension. They will laugh at you.
It takes 7 to 8 years to qualify as an architect. If you google it, you will see that a few graduates are starting to get jobs again in Ireland. It says, according to Hays Recruitment," the typical salary for a graduate architect in the greater Dublin area is € 24,000 and € 20,000 in other parts of Ireland."

Hang on, you brought up architects, not me but it applies to any professional like an accountant or solicitor. You're just lying to yourself if you think it would be difficult to find a professional in the private sector earning more than their public sector counterpart. Yeah a public sector employee might start at a higher wage but they are stuck on a rigid scale then. A private sector worker has a much more flexible pay scale and has the potential to earn much more with experience, especially if they go self employed.

evolving_doors

maryishere wrote: »

To give you some inkling:
Irish public service salaries rose by 59% in the five years from 2001 to 2006 alone, and the payroll then expanded in those years alone by 38,000 extra staff.
Average industrial wage rise in the period was 19%

The public service pensions bill has increased from €876m in 2001 to €1,588m in 2006 representing an 81.3% increase over the period.

In the Celtic tiger period,Taoiseach Bertie Ahern wanted to buy off the public service unions, whatever the price and as a man whose job before entering politics was an administrator in a Dublin hospital, he had not the exposure of life in an unprotected private sector company.

Do not forget in December 2000, a Public Service Benchmarking Body, established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF), was asked to undertake a fundamental examination of the pay of public service employees vis-a-vis the private sector. Former Davy Stockbrokers' economist Jim O'Leary was a member of the body for a period but he resigned before it reported.

In 2004, O'Leary who had joined the Department of Economics at Maynooth University, published with two of his colleagues, the results of six months' rigorous and painstaking research into public-private sector pay differentials in Ireland - Public-Private Wage Differentials in Ireland, G.Boyle, R.McElligott and J.O'Leary, ESRI Quarterly Economic Commentary, Summer 2004.

O'Leary and his colleagues wanted to discover whether similar people in similar employment circumstances were better or worse off working in the public than in the private sector. In order to do this, they had to control for attributes like age, experience, gender and education, and also for job characteristics like occupation, type of contract and size of establishment.

As the CSO data does not permit this kind of analysis, the dataset that they had to use is one based on a large-scale survey conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) and used for much of its research into poverty and inequality.

The core finding was that on average, public servants earned 13 per cent more than their private sector counterparts on a like-for-like basis in 2001. The researchers also discovered that the size of this margin (the public sector premium) in 2001 was not significantly different from what it had been in 1994, suggesting that pay increases in the public sector had kept pace with the private sector throughout the Celtic Tiger period.

Another discovery was that the margin by which public service workers outearned their private sector counterparts tended to be significantly larger at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top.

A particularly striking finding was that the estimate of the public sector premium for Ireland was more than twice as large as the available estimates for other countries.

The Public Sector Benchmarking Body recommended pay increases which averaged 9 per cent across the grades examined and cost €1.2 billion a year. Government Departments introduced aspirational targets for staff that would make a laughing stock of a manager in the private sector who emulated the farcical exercise.

O'Leary said that the Public Sector Benchmarking Body never published its research results and at no stage in its 278-page report did it explicitly state or opine that public sector pay had fallen behind that in the private sector.

Ministers, other politicians and all living former employees of the Irish public service received special payments.

During the Celtic tiger, Davy Stockbrokers said that Irish public sector pay is on average around 120 percent of private sector earnings, having risen from 113 percent in the previous five years.

The biggest fraud of all was that the Benchmarking Body did not take any account of the unique public pension scheme, never mind the issue of job security.

Ok, you've established for yourself that 'on average' pay in the public sector is higher. Great, I think we all knew that though!

I asked why is that, and you've restated 'cos it is'. Although in the very last two words you've hinted close to the answer. So you're getting close. Just move a little bit away from your notion that you live in a purely 'capitalistic society' and think about health/education/infrastructure/society and you might find that there's a reason why we WANT/NEED a public service.


Maybe if I rephrase the question to see it from your perspective.

Would you be content if average public sector wage was lower than the private sector?

maryishere

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Hang on, you brought up architects, not me but it applies to any professional like an accountant or solicitor. You're just lying to yourself if you think it would be difficult to find a professional in the private sector earning more than their public sector counterpart. Yeah a public sector employee might start at a higher wage but they are stuck on a rigid scale then. A private sector worker has a much more flexible pay scale and has the potential to earn much more with experience, especially if they go self employed.

Statistics will show self employed architects earn much less too : half of them lost their jobs jobs in the downturn., others are just hanging on. You would not see any architects from the public sector go self employed. Yes the potential is there to earn lots, but even celebrity architects like the one from tv said he lives in a modest cramped house in Dublins northside, with a mortgage. Anyway the statistics are gathered from thousands of people. Why, if you compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc., is the public sector one considerably better paid on average? Should it not be more equal, like in other countries? Or even the other way around, given that job security and pension should be factored in to the equation?

evolving_doors

maryishere wrote: »

Statistics will show self employed architects earn much less too : half of them lost their jobs jobs in the downturn., others are just hanging on. You would not see any architects from the public sector go self employed. Yes the potential is there to earn lots, but even celebrity architects like the one from tv said he lives in a modest cramped house in Dublins northside, with a mortgage. Anyway the statistics are gathered from thousands of people. Why, if you compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc., is the public sector one considerably better paid on average? ...

Good you're asking yourself the right questions now. So why do YOU think it is?

maryishere wrote: »

Should it not be more equal, like in other countries? Or even the other way around, given that job security and pension should be factored in to the equation?

Like in Cuba? Are you advocating socialism?

Little CuChulainn

maryishere wrote: »

Statistics will show self employed architects earn much less too : half of them lost their jobs jobs in the downturn., others are just hanging on. You would not see any architects from the public sector go self employed.

Yes you will. You wouldn't at the height of a depression but you'll see an ever increasing amount as the country recovers.

maryishere wrote: »

Anyway the statistics are gathered from thousands of people. Why, if you compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc., is the public sector one considerably better paid on average? Should it not be more equal, like in other countries? Or even the other way around, given that job security and pension should be factored in to the equation?

Because you aren't comparing like with like on an individual basis. You are comparing the average wage of the entire public sector, all ranks and levels of experience, with a random selection of private sector workers. These aren't like for like comparisons.

maryishere

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Good you're asking yourself the right questions now. So why do YOU think it is?

answered in post 1283 and other posts if you read back through the thread.
The reason Irish public service salaries rose by 59% in the five years from 2001 to 2006 alone, and the payroll then expanded in those years alone by 38,000 extra staff (average industrial wage rise in the period was 19%) was because the government wanted to buy off the public service unions, whatever the price. Bertie Aherns job before entering politics was an administrator in a Dublin hospital, he had not the exposure of life in an unprotected private sector company...and our cuuent Taoiseach was a teacher, as are many in the Dail.

The public service pensions bill has increased from €876m in 2001 to €1,588m in 2006 representing an 81.3% increase over the period. Why do YOU think that was?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Like in Cuba? Are you advocating socialism?

Far from it. Most other countries in the world do not have as big a public service pay premium as Ireland but they are not like Cuba.

esforum

Cheese Wagstaff wrote: »

To summarise...

1. Fergal O'Brien
2. Luckily soldiers are not intelligent, because they'd be terrible soldiers if they were.
3. Fergal O'Brien
4. I won't answer anything I'm asked, because it would cripple my baseless strawman argument.
5. Fergal O'Brien

well Im convinced, why didnt mary put it so well? :P

then again she has reverted to ignoring arguements she doesnt like

esforum

mulbot wrote: »

Post number 1238,page 83 is where you said it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulbot
What professions are you referring to? A lot of public sector employees don't even have third level education.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mulbot
Such as?

Gardai, nurses, doctors, solicitors, paramedics, teachers.

they are your quotes, not mine.

I take it you accept all the other arguements I put forward?

maryishere

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Would you be content if average public sector wage was lower than the private sector?

It would be a fairer society if a secretary in the private sector earned the same as one in public sector, a vet in the private sector with one in the public sector, an architectural technician in the private sector with one in the public sector etc

That would be fairer. The public service worker would still have the advantage of greater job security, better pension etc. But it would be fairer than the existing situation.

Inspector Coptoor

maryishere wrote: »

It would be a fairer society if a secretary in the private sector earned the same as one in public sector, a vet in the private sector with one in the public sector, an architectural technician in the private sector with one in the public sector etc

That would be fairer. The public service worker would still have the advantage of greater job security, better pension etc. But it would be fairer than the existing situation.

Can you, for once, put forward another point?

Your Ctrl C & Ctrl V fingers must be damn near worn out from all the copying and pasting.

It's getting very tiresome.

You base all your "statistical Facts" on averages.

Averages aren't worth talking bout for reasons outlined to you umpteen times that you choose to ignore.

maryishere

Well, Inspector Coptoor, statistics and averages back up what I was saying, you have nothing to back up anything you said. Have you any insight in to anything? For example, would you care to have a stab at answering a question asked a few posts ago: The public service pensions bill increased from €876m in 2001 to €1,588m in 2006 representing an 81.3% increase over the period. Why do YOU think that was?

PMBC

maryishere wrote: »

I have not only answered questions but given links to back up facts. Now, how about you answer a question: why, if you compare a secretary in the public service with one in private sector, a vet in the public service with one in the private sector, an architectural technician in the public sector with one in the private sector etc., is the public sector one not just considerably better paid on average, despite being the one having better job security and better pension?

From my knowledge vets in private sector are better paid than public sector. Ditto Arch Techs although that has now equalised due to failure of construction industries. Secretarial and other admin grades better paid in public sector except managerial grades who are better paid in private sector.

maryishere

PMBC wrote: »

From my knowledge ....

Welcome to the thread PMBC. Do you have any statistics to back that up? Or what are you basing your knowledge on? Do you know many vets, architectural technicians, architects? Did you read the links earlier in the thread proving you wrong?

PMBC

maryishere wrote: »

Welcome to the thread PMBC. Do you have any statistics to back that up? Or what are you basing your knowledge on? Do you know many vets, architectural technicians, architects? Did you read the links earlier in the thread proving you wrong?

Yes I knew several vets in Private Practice where meat factories were the big earner for them and they were earning more that the two vets I knew in public service. I knew several architects, arch technicians and engineering technicians who were OFFERED more money to leave the public sector.
Of course maybe they were making it up! Ive no axe to grind as I don't work in either.

Inspector Coptoor

maryishere wrote: »

Well, Inspector Coptoor, statistics and averages back up what I was saying, you have nothing to back up anything you said. Have you any insight in to anything? For example, would you care to have a stab at answering a question asked a few posts ago: The public service pensions bill increased from €876m in 2001 to €1,588m in 2006 representing an 81.3% increase over the period. Why do YOU think that was?

An aging group of pensioners who are living longer due to increases in "average" life expectancy and advances in healthcare, cancer treatment etc


That was an easy question Mary.

Next question

mulbot

esforum wrote: »

they are your quotes, not mine.

I take it you accept all the other arguements I put forward?

If you look at post #1238 you will see it was you who answered,and named Gardai and Nurses,and paramedics in your answer to my question about which sectors were more educated-are you denying you did?

I never said I didn't agree-I was just puzzled by that statement- By the way,I haven't had any issue on this thread about public servants,I got involved when the focus was teachers.