Benefits of Public Sector over Private Sector

Hotblack Desiato

CramCycle wrote: »

Also not helped by a number of workers outside the public sector who don't invest in a classic style pension. I have several friends whose pension is a house they have bought, or land they have, or something similar. Some buy stocks and shares directly but an even larger number just don't have one at all. Plenty of people still getting found with piles of cash around the house.

Apart from the massive risks attached to all of the above "alternative pensions", they're massively tax inefficient. Seems most people don't have a clue about money - yet feel qualified to bash anyone they think is doing better than they are.

I always laugh at my friend a plumber who says the number of times you find a wedge of 5000euro (or whatever) in a pensioners house while doing work, you hand it over and half the time, they forgot they ever left it there is incredible. When a neighbour of mine passed away we were asked to help clear out his house as he had no family and left everything to the church. Opened one wardrobe and found 30,000euro just sitting there. Its astonishing.

That sort of thing is what comes to mind any time I hear a politician guffing on about how OAPs are "the most vulnerable group in society", meanwhile working families are wondering whether they can afford €60 to take their child to the doctor.

beauf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

....
That sort of thing is what comes to mind any time I hear a politician guffing on about how OAPs are "the most vulnerable group in society", meanwhile working families are wondering whether they can afford €60 to take their child to the doctor.

Don't worry the nursing home at 1200-1600 a week will sort that out.

hello2020

hello2020 wrote: »

when in public service, can one also take up extra work outside the office hours?

It depends. The short answer is no, but the long answer is that it is dependent upon the type of work. Driving a taxi would be fine for most people, but there may be issues if you work for the NTA in, say, taxi regulation or something else that might constitute a conflict of interest.

Other jobs might not be directly relatable to the office / department but would not be allowed for other reasons. Having a nixer delivering curries, for example, wouldn't be a huge issue until it turns out you work for Revenue and you get done for tax fraud. People who work for the Courts service can be fired if they end up in Court for certain charges, AFAIK.

There's a whole code of conduct but it couldn't possibly cover every example as there are an infinite amount. There's bespoke rules for each and every department. Those who work in property related jobs like the Planning sections of the Co Co have to declare any/all property holdings. Most others would be subject to the Official Secrets Act.....that kinda stuff.

It would be advisable to run any potential income streams past management before you came a-cropper.

28 page document on the standards and codes, if you're interested.

Geuze

HerrKuehn wrote: »

I
There is a risk that this could be means tested in the future. I mean if a private sector worker has managed to put together a decent pension it isn't inconceivable that they could say, "state pension only pays out if you have less than 1m in assets"

I have heard people say that the COAP will be means-tested in the future.

This is impossible, as there already exists the NCOAP.

How could both of them be means-tested?

We either have a social insurance pension, or we don't.

Geuze

doc22 wrote: »

For the higher prsi they received a higher wage to compensate,

1995 idea was to stop public servants getting two pensions on retirement. Say a teacher who did part time grinds with class A stamp they could/can claim their 35k PS pension and 25k state pension(AD added)

Be careful here.

The teachers scale did not change pre and post 1995.

Yes, there are two payscales in the Civil Service, but is that not because the post 95 started paying the superannuation, rather than being due to starting paying PRSI?


I checked, and found this:

This switch to integrated pensions in 1995 coincided with:
 Such employees being required to pay PRSI at the higher Class A rate, instead of the lower
‘modified’ Class B, C or D rates of PRSI paid by those recruited before 6th April 1995.
 The introduction of an explicit Superannuation contribution for those sectors that had not
previously paid such a contribution, e.g. civil service, and the increase in the contribution for
those who had previously paid a reduced contribution, e.g. Gardaí.
 A compensating increase in the pay scales for those sectors required to make a Superannuation
contribution for the first time (Civil Service) or to pay an increased rate of contribution (Gardaí).
The increase in pay scales was 20/19 for the Civil Service and 20/19 x 98.25% for Gardaí.

https://paycommission.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/DPER-pensions.pdf

Appendix 3.

AndrewJRenko

StackSteevens wrote: »

No. The public sector pension age went up to 67 in 2013 FOR ALL NEW ENTRANTS.

However, existing employees were allowed to retain their previous rights as regards retirement age and pension.

It may be unintended, but you make it sound like the Government did some big generous favour to existing employees by "allowing' them to retain their rights, when in fact, the Government just met its existing contractual obligations to each employee. They had already taken a chunk of money out of these pockets via the pension related deduction.

hello2020

Deleted User wrote: »

It depends. The short answer is no, but the long answer is that it is dependent upon the type of work. Driving a taxi would be fine for most people, but there may be issues if you work for the NTA in, say, taxi regulation or something else that might constitute a conflict of interest.

Other jobs might not be directly relatable to the office / department but would not be allowed for other reasons. Having a nixer delivering curries, for example, wouldn't be a huge issue until it turns out you work for Revenue and you get done for tax fraud. People who work for the Courts service can be fired if they end up in Court for certain charges, AFAIK.

There's a whole code of conduct but it couldn't possibly cover every example as there are an infinite amount. There's bespoke rules for each and every department. Those who work in property related jobs like the Planning sections of the Co Co have to declare any/all property holdings. Most others would be subject to the Official Secrets Act.....that kinda stuff.

It would be advisable to run any potential income streams past management before you came a-cropper.

28 page document on the standards and codes, if you're interested.

thank you for providing such a detailed answer.. for IT professionals , public service jobs does not appear to be very attractive compared to pay in private sector.

Chaos Black

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It may be unintended, but you make it sound like the Government did some big generous favour to existing employees by "allowing' them to retain their rights, when in fact, the Government just met its existing contractual obligations to each employee. They had already taken a chunk of money out of these pockets via the pension related deduction.

Bone of contention for some post 2013 staff is the pension difference. I know which cohort I'd prefer to be in!

The one scheme I believe can be rolled out to all members as it is legislated for I think, but good luck doing it.

kippy

hello2020 wrote: »

thank you for providing such a detailed answer.. for IT professionals , public service jobs does not appear to be very attractive compared to pay in private sector.

Yeah but like anything, there are pros and cons, It's not just financial.

Harper91

Both public and private sectors have good pensions but not as good as people think if you got In during the 90s yeah it would be good now it's just average. I know a prison officer who is retiring at 55 after 30s years on the Job I would say his pension will be good but he hates his job. Most officers do courses on the side. he said it's like groundhog day most days and the things you see would most people wouldn't be able to handle . I think the retirement age in there now is 60 not sure .


Why are some people so fixated on pensions , they cant wait to get there pension so they can live life and do what they always wanted . But you could be dead before you even get to it , why wait to do what ever you want until you get your pension to enjoy it . Sure iv come across people who say if I dont enjoy it my kids will.
I understand you want to look after your kids .

Most kids are left there parents house if are lucky anyway others just have to save like there parents did they dont need your pension.

I wouldn't say going to see the 7 wonders of the world ( just an example)when your nearly 70 would be the same as if you go when your young and fit. Iv come across family members who die well before they even retire I'm sure others have aswell , how much money do you actually need because you wont be doing much when your 70 anyway if you make it , compared to when you have time and health on your side when are young.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It may be unintended, but you make it sound like the Government did some big generous favour to existing employees by "allowing' them to retain their rights, when in fact, the Government just met its existing contractual obligations to each employee. They had already taken a chunk of money out of these pockets via the pension related deduction.

What does thar have to do with anything?

Every employee signs a contract stating place of work, salary, etc.

Doesn't prevent private sector employee losing their jobs though. So why should changes in conditions not apply to public sector employees regardless of 'contracts'

To unilaterally raise the COAP for one group of workers yet not apply to public sector workers is a disgrace and completely unfair while everyone pays the same PRSI.

The 'COAP portion' of the PS pension is not a true reflection. The PS pension includes a lump-sum as well as continued payments to spouse in case of death. The COAP does not have these attributes.

AndrewJRenko

salonfire wrote: »

What does thar have to do with anything?

Every employee signs a contract stating place of work, salary, etc.

Doesn't prevent private sector employee losing their jobs though. So why should changes in conditions not apply to public sector employees regardless of 'contracts'

To unilaterally raise the COAP for one group of workers yet not apply to public sector workers is a disgrace and completely unfair while everyone pays the same PRSI.

The 'COAP portion' of the PS pension is not a true reflection. The PS pension includes a lump-sum as well as continued payments to spouse in case of death. The COAP does not have these attributes.

Losing your job affects the future. Removing earned pension entitlements affects the past. No employer, public or private, can retrospectively change benefits.

Hotblack Desiato

salonfire wrote: »

Every employee signs a contract stating place of work, salary, etc.

Doesn't prevent private sector employee losing their jobs though.

Yeah but then they have to pay redundancy.

So why should changes in conditions not apply to public sector employees regardless of 'contracts'

Because a contract is a legally binding agreement. This is basic stuff :rolleyes:

To unilaterally raise the COAP for one group of workers yet not apply to public sector workers is a disgrace and completely unfair while everyone pays the same PRSI.

Not everyone pays the same PRSI, and your sentence above makes literally no sense.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not everyone pays the same PRSI, and your sentence above makes literally no sense.

Yes, they do. Post '95, the PS pension is made up of the COAP for which they pay same PRSI rate as everyone else (compensated by a pay increase at that time also). Except it is not quite the same COAP as non-PS who do not have a lump-sum or benefit after death.

So for same PRSI rate, the PS worker's COAP pension is:

- protected from age increases in COAP:
- includes a lump-sum
- pays half to spouse after death.

Hotblack Desiato

Not everyone is post-95 you know.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not everyone is post-95 you know.

Its 25 years ago so most are post 95.

the-island-man

Hi,

Apologies but I am going to resurrect this thread!

I have applied for a role in a state agency in the area of ICT. A lot of the previous talk in the bits of the Thread that I managed to read seemed to be focused on the financial side of things, specifically pensions. As a person with a young family who was badly burned in a private sector role a few years I am a lot more interested in the family friendly policies of the public sector. I would very much appreciate if someone in the PS could clarify some of these policies.

I understand for experienced roles it would seem the annual leave tends to veer towards 30 days per year?

Regards Flexi-Leave, is this something which only applies to civil service or is it allowed in state agencies also?

Is the shorter working year scheme ( https://hr.per.gov.ie/supports/flexible-work-arrangements/) only available to the civil service?

Is it hard to get parental leave arrangements, career breaks and job sharing agreements approved?

Are there any other family friendly practices that are worth mentioning?

HartsHat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117685405#Comment_117685405

30 days leave is the max amount is only available from AP upward.

Flexi time is not available at these grades and is only available at AO/HEO and below.

Basically if you have 30 days leave you cant have flexi and vice versa.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117685456#Comment_117685456

If WFH becomes permanent fixture, at least a day or two at home, might offset the lack of flexi-leave.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117685405#Comment_117685405

In my experience (PS not CS), you generally do your contracted hours. So no long hours firefighting one ridiculous deadline after another as is common in IT. The rest of it will very much depends on the culture of the unit, you are working in, and managers you are under.

the-island-man

Also I keep hearing in the online forums mention of how you get a lot more opportunities to gain qualifications. In private multi-national companies I've experienced a number of them offering to sponsor a masters or HDip program for an employee in exchange for 2 years of service. Is this what people mean by the PS offering the chance to get qualifications or are they better at putting you on training courses and helping you get professional certifications?

datk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117692930#Comment_117692930

In my experience PS are good for study opportunities so long as the study is directly related to your work. Same applies as your experience in private sector. If you leave within two years the cost will be recouped.

In reply to your earlier question - amount of leave depends on the grade, flexi is only available up to a certain grade. Parental leave is accommodated - it probably depends on the organisation - my organisation allows for blocks of leave or it can be used to reduce to 80% max. Careers breaks are available after a length of service- maybe 5 years. Job sharing isn't a feature in my organisation anymore - the most people can get in reduced hours is one day a week.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117692930#Comment_117692930

Lots of training and education available, though approval can vary in different organisations and departments. You'll have to pay up front for any masters/PhD courses, and you get a refund once you pass the exam.

willthiswork

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117685456#Comment_117685456

HEOs and AOs get 30 days max as well when they reach ten years service.