Tell us the hourly rate of public servants.

sbsquarepants · 05-03-2013 11:38AM

taato wrote: »

When you say 'average' do you refer to arithmetic mean? would it not be more accurate to look at the median wage? because there are some extraordinarily higly paid public servants bringing up the 'average' whereas the majority of people in the public service earn significantly less than the 'average'.

1 in every 6 earn above 60k - that's skewing your average way more than the handfull of cases earning mega salaries. If such a high proportion of any given workforce are paid well in excess of the overall average ind wage then of course the "average" wage of that workforce is going to look quite high in comparison to the overall average.
It's not a statistical anomaly, it's just because it is quite high.

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 11:43AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

I'm on the phone right now but the most recent CSO quarterly figures have the median at around 47k. That blows that theory out of the water

the median for 2010 (released in october 2012) is the most recent figure I have and is around €42k and the average about €45k

As the median is below the average then it is true that more PS workers earn less than the average....although "significantly" is obviously harder to prove from the stats

Godge · 05-03-2013 11:45AM

antoobrien wrote: »

Salary Freeze

For some reason increments are not included in the definition of "salary" despite the fact that it increases salary.

Increments cause confusion with uneducated posters who think they are equivalent to salary rises.

Consider instead the following situation:

A company has a salary range of €30,000 to €35,000 for a particular job. Employees are variously placed within that salary range.

The company decides to cut the salary range to €28,000 to €33,000. As a result anyone who was on €35,000 gets cut to €33,000 (Measure A). Someone who was on €30,000 gets cut to €28,000.

However, the company does not cut the annual review (Measure

in order to retain some incentive for newer employees. While the person on €33,000 can no longer get a rise under the annual review and is stuck with the pay cut, anyone on €28,000 upwards can get a rise but not above the new ceiling of €33,000.

Measure A would cut the salary bill of the company significantly but Measure B alleviates this somewhat i.e. the company's salary bill does not go down as much as it would have had Measure B not been retained.

This is similar to what happened in the public service. Therefore, while there was a headline average cut (including pension levy) of 14% in public sector pay rates, the actual cut in the salary bill (including pension levy but excluding number reduction) only came to about 10% because of the increment factor.

Neither side are absolutely correct in their stance on this in these threads as increments do increase pay but at the same time the pay ceiling is now much lower for everyone and people who were at or near the top of their scale have seen large cuts in salary (even larger after 1 July for those over €65,000) and the total salary bill has fallen significantly when you include the numbers redution and pension levy.

The idea put forward by some that the public service has not seen pay cuts is quite frankly childishly ridiculous and silly but it is true to say that there are some who were near the bottom of long incremental scales who have seen increments catch up with the pay cuts. However, the vast majority of public servants have seen their actual pay cut. In contrast, the vast majority of private sector workers (outside the construction industry) have seen their pay go up.

Godge · 05-03-2013 11:46AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

1 in every 6 earn above 60k - that's skewing your average way more than the handfull of cases earning mega salaries. If such a high proportion of any given workforce are paid well in excess of the overall average ind wage then of course the "average" wage of that workforce is going to look quite high in comparison to the overall average.
It's not a statistical anomaly, it's just because it is quite high.

Is 1 in 6 high? Explain how this works?

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 11:59AM

Godge wrote: »

Increments cause confusion with uneducated posters who think they are equivalent to salary rises.

Consider instead the following situation:

A company has a salary range of €30,000 to €35,000 for a particular job. Employees are variously placed within that salary range.

The company decides to cut the salary range to €28,000 to €33,000. As a result anyone who was on €35,000 gets cut to €33,000 (Measure A). Someone who was on €30,000 gets cut to €28,000.

However, the company does not cut the annual review (Measure in order to retain some incentive for newer employees. While the person on €33,000 can no longer get a rise under the annual review and is stuck with the pay cut, anyone on €28,000 upwards can get a rise but not above the new ceiling of €33,000.

Measure A would cut the salary bill of the company significantly but Measure B alleviates this somewhat i.e. the company's salary bill does not go down as much as it would have had Measure B not been retained.

This is similar to what happened in the public service. Therefore, while there was a headline average cut (including pension levy) of 14% in public sector pay rates, the actual cut in the salary bill (including pension levy but excluding number reduction) only came to about 10% because of the increment factor.

Neither side are absolutely correct in their stance on this in these threads as increments do increase pay but at the same time the pay ceiling is now much lower for everyone and people who were at or near the top of their scale have seen large cuts in salary (even larger after 1 July for those over €65,000) and the total salary bill has fallen significantly when you include the numbers redution and pension levy.

The idea put forward by some that the public service has not seen pay cuts is quite frankly childishly ridiculous and silly but it is true to say that there are some who were near the bottom of long incremental scales who have seen increments catch up with the pay cuts. However, the vast majority of public servants have seen their actual pay cut. In contrast, the vast majority of private sector workers (outside the construction industry) have seen their pay go up.

I haven't seen a bigger pile of cow dung since the last time my neighbours cleared out the slatted house.

An increment is a salary rise because it increases the cost to the employer and, all else being equal, increases the take home pay of the worker.

The fact that increments are being applied to lower pay scales than they were in 2008 does change the fact that it increases pay levels. This kinda negates the effect of a "pay freeze" that doesn't freeze levels of pay.

Topping out payscales also happens in the private sector btw.

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 12:02PM

antoobrien wrote: »

I haven't seen a bigger pile of cow dung since the last time my neighbours cleared out the slatted house.

.

lads, seriously, this is pointless

there really is no point going here again

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 12:08PM

Riskymove wrote: »

lads, seriously, this is pointless

there really is no point going here again

Godges rationalisation that because the PS have seen cuts to core pay means that a increment is not a pay rise because it hasn't gotten back to the earlier levels ignores the fact that pay is going up as a result of the increment.

It's extremely disingenuous - if not outright lying - to describe a situation that allows salaries to rise as being compatible with a pay freeze, which is defined as no upward changes to salaries.

ardmacha · 05-03-2013 12:13PM

People are confusing individual incomes with pay levels in a sector, and doing this deliberately even though the difference is perfectly obvious.
If you have a pay freeze for 40 years, i.e. no increase in pay for comparable employees for a 40 year period, then this would not mean that everyone at the end of the period would be on starter salaries. You would have the same spread of salaries as had always existed, just that they were the same for comparable employees as 40 years before.

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 12:20PM

antoobrien wrote: »

It's extremely disingenuous - if not outright lying - to describe a situation that allows salaries to rise as being compatible with a pay freeze, which is defined as no upward changes to salaries.

I suppose the other side is that describing a situation where someone gets a 10% reduction in pay and then gets a 2% increment as having had a "pay rise" is maybe a bit disingenous too

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 12:25PM

ardmacha wrote: »

People are confusing individual incomes with pay levels in a sector, and doing this deliberately even though the difference is perfectly obvious.

The document refers to "An ongoing pay freeze" so it seems pretty obvious that increasing individual pay packets through use of increments means that there is a very different of pay freeze being used than what is commonly understood i.e. no upward changes to salaries across the board.

ardmacha · 05-03-2013 12:52PM

The document refers to "An ongoing pay freeze" so it seems pretty obvious that increasing individual pay packets through use of increments means that there is a very different of pay freeze being used than what is commonly understood i.e. no upward changes to salaries across the board.

I gave an example above. Do you expect that in a pay freeze that everyone, however experienced, would end up on starter salaries? Yes or No?

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 12:57PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I suppose the other side is that describing a situation where someone gets a 10% reduction in pay and then gets a 2% increment as having had a "pay rise" is maybe a bit disingenous too

It's not disingenuous if you remove perception from the issue and just deal with facts.

Has the overall income dropped by 8% yes.
Had it dropped more - yes
Has it come back up some - yes.

The third bit makes it a pay rise from the new base. The old base is now irrelevant, except for comparative purposes.

To extend the example, if there are 3 such increments applied then there is a 6% upward change from the new base. That means that it is costing the employer 6% more than it did when they cut the pay originally. The perception may well be that there was a 4% reduction from the original, but as pointed out that is an invalid argument as the old base no longer exists.

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 01:16PM

ardmacha wrote: »

I gave an example above. Do you expect that in a pay freeze that everyone, however experienced, would end up on starter salaries? Yes or No

For several reasons, no but primarily because the example is totally unrealistic - no pay structure or set of rates would remain static for 40 years.

In a salary freeze, if a worker does not change grades, then I would not expect salary to increase.

But if pay is linked to grade, then I would expect a salary increase because they would have to move to a different salary scale due to the nature of the pay structure.

The question then becomes is there also a promotion ban (this I don't know)?

But a pay freeze means that pay (not pay scales) doesn't change.

The company I worker for has divorced pay scales from grades. The last time I got a promotion we were in a pay freeze due to the fact that our section had not hit sales targets (a bit annoying to an engineering team that hits their targets).

My manager had to make a business argument that went to our VP (and possibly to the board) to make an exception to allow me to change pay structures. I was the only person that got a pay increase for two years (in our group of 30) during the pay freeze period and it was because of the change of grade - and even then it was only because of the risk of losing the skills that the company had invested time in developing.

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 01:43PM

antoobrien wrote: »

It's not disingenuous if you remove perception from the issue and just deal with facts.

but you see the measures are taken across the PS, not on an individual basis. The pay freeze in the PS refers to the fact that there is no national pay increases to the PS wage levels or pay scales.

every PS worker has taken a serious of cuts and are about to face more

some have received increments that have ameliorated these cuts but noone can be earning what they would have been if the cuts had not happened

therefore the reductions and savings planned for in the cuts remain

interfering in the incremental scales does little overall except create inequalities and division within the ranks

no pay structure or set of rates would remain static for 40 years.

perhaps not for 40 years but this is the case for 4 or 5 years now and will be for another 3 at least if the extension to CPA is accepted. Indeed it is not even that as they are reduced rather than static

The question then becomes is there also a promotion ban (this I don't know)?

there is a moratorium whereby any new recruitment or promotion needs approval from the Minister for Public Expenditure following a business case process.

I was the only person that got a pay increase for two years (in our group of 30) during the pay freeze period

so they circumvented a pay freeze by promoting you...the joys of the private sector flexibility

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 01:57PM

Riskymove wrote: »

but you see the measures are taken across the PS, not on an individual basis.

I know that - pay is paid on an individual basis, pay scales are on an organisational basis.

Riskymove wrote: »

The pay freeze in the PS refers to the fact that there is no national pay increases to the PS wage levels or pay scales.

But that's not the whole story because pay levels can still go up through the increment process.

Riskymove wrote: »

every PS worker has taken a serious of cuts and are about to face more

Agreed

Riskymove wrote: »

noone can be earning what they would have been if the cuts had not happened

I haven't seen or heard of anybody making that argument. Any expectation that to have gotten back to the former base in such a short period of time is misguided.

Riskymove wrote: »

interfering in the incremental scales does little overall except create inequalities and division within the ranks

I fail to see how that is the case, if it is applied across the board (as it has should be). Freezing all increments would keep everybody on the current levels, how would that cause the inequalities etc?

perhaps not for 40 years but this is the case for 4 or 5 years now and will be for another 3 at least if the extension to CPA is accepted. Indeed it is not even that as they are reduced rather than static

Riskymove wrote: »

there is a moratorium whereby any new recruitment or promotion needs approval from the Minister for Public Expenditure following a business case process.

Ah, so it sounds exactly like the approval process used by my employers. So we can expect to see few/no promotions in areas that are regarded as being overstaffed by management or where grades are "full".

Riskymove wrote: »

so they circumvented a pay freeze by promoting you...the joys of the private sector flexibility

As it happens the approvals for the promotion were in before the approvals for the pay rise, so any circumvention happened after the fact. But if there are genuine needs for promotions Howlin will have no problem in signing off on them, so it's not like there's now way to circumvent it in the PS either.

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 02:12PM

antoobrien wrote: »

But that's not the whole story because pay levels can still go up through the increment process.

well I would just say - but only for some of the PS

after that we are getting back into the well worn increment discussion which, as I said, I dont want to do.

I haven't seen or heard of anybody making that argument. Any expectation that to have gotten back to the former base in such a short period of time is misguided.

no my point is that even where increments apply, PS workers cannot go higher than the old max minus the cuts - the pay ceiling has been reduced for everybody and that is where the savings are made long term.

I fail to see how that is the case, if it is applied across the board (as it has should be). Freezing all increments would keep everybody on the current levels, how would that cause the inequalities etc?

because those already on the max would be unaffected while more junior people would have wage differences made more permanent while doing the same job...the original purpose of an incremental scale is thus distorted

you could, arguably, be breaking equal pay laws

as the increment freeze proposed is not across the board this makes the measure even more inequitable

So we can expect to see few/no promotions in areas that are regarded as being overstaffed by management or where grades are "full".

no , its more likely that positions deemed "vital" would be replaced as opposed to other factors

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 03:17PM

Riskymove wrote: »

no my point is that even where increments apply, PS workers cannot go higher than the old max minus the cuts - the pay ceiling has been reduced for everybody and that is where the savings are made long term.

If increments are raising the pay bill by say 80m per year (I heard this figure somewhere, I don't know if its true) then the effect of an increments freeze over the course of the agreement would gather 240m - 1/4 of the required savings.

Instead we're allowing increments to eat into the savings, requiring deeper cuts to be made to core pay to allow for the changes increments will make. That doesn't make sense to me.

Riskymove wrote: »

because those already on the max would be unaffected while more junior people would have wage differences made more permanent while doing the same job...the original purpose of an incremental scale is thus distorted

Wha? Nobody would see a change in their pay, so it wouldn't create any further differences. The seniors would still be on their higher increments (partial rollback aside) and the juniors would still be on their incremental rate.

In fact the current proposal that allows increments will see those gaps close, which is potenially unfair on the senior staff.

Riskymove wrote: »

you could, arguably, be breaking equal pay laws

The system itself seems to me to be breaking equal pay laws by allowing for different rates of pay to do the same job.

Riskymove wrote: »

as the increment freeze proposed is not across the board this makes the measure even more inequitable

Are you suggesting that the proposed increment changes do not apply to certain departments?

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 03:28PM

[

QUOTE=antoobrien;83515750]
Wha? Nobody would see a change in their pay, so it wouldn't create any further differences. The seniors would still be on their higher increments (partial rollback aside) and the juniors would still be on their incremental rate.

In fact the current proposal that allows increments will see those gaps close, which is potenially unfair on the senior staff.

the exisiting system allows all staff, subject to perfromance to move to the max point therefore all workers will eventually be the same

the proposals effectively freeze potentially large gaps in salary for 3 years

The system itself seems to me to be breaking equal pay laws by allowing for different rates of pay to do the same job.

as above, you move along the scales in the same manner as everyone else - that will now change

Are you suggesting that the proposed increment changes do not apply to certain departments?

no to different grades

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 03:43PM

Riskymove wrote: »

the proposals effectively freeze potentially large gaps in salary for 3 years

If the gaps are pre-existing then keeping them is equitable. If gaps are created as part of this freeze e.g. as a result of me getting my increment in December and you having to wait until August instead of getting it in May, then it's not.

If the salary changes are because somebody is more productive than their peers, then well done sir/madam you deserve it.

Riskymove wrote: »

no to different grades

Well considering the lower grades top out at 60k and the changed increments are being applied to those above 65k, there's not a lot of a problem with that.

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 03:52PM

antoobrien wrote: »

If the gaps are pre-existing then keeping them is equitable. If gaps are created as part of this freeze e.g. as a result of me getting my increment in December and you having to wait until August instead of getting it in May, then it's not.

the plans will create a much larger timepsan for such gaps and will lead toimo obvious issues around morale

conencted to your next point

If the salary changes are because somebody is more productive than their peers, then well done sir/madam you deserve it.

the plans will remove any incentive to be more productive or effective for the next few years

theoretically high performers will receive absolutely no benefit as their gap to more senior people is fixed for three years

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 03:58PM

Riskymove wrote: »

the plans will remove any incentive to be more productive or effective for the next few years

Only for the higher paid - which is supposedly about 1/6th of the PS. For the rest of the PS, unless they're all on the tops of their increment ranges, it's business as usual.

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 04:00PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Only for the higher paid - which is supposedly about 1/6th of the PS.

that doesn't make it a good idea

they are after all, in the main, managers with a significant influence

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 04:07PM

Riskymove wrote: »

that doesn't make it a good idea

they are after all, in the main, managers with a significant influence

Well that can go two ways. They could decide:
"If I'm not getting one, nobody else is" - which will cause problems
or
"If I want to see one in 3 years, I'd better make sure by section is up to scratch."

As for the whole morale argument I'd much rather see a bonus scheme combined with a smaller increments system, rather than straight increments, as it will reward both short term and longer term performance.

sbsquarepants · 05-03-2013 04:10PM

Godge wrote: »

Is 1 in 6 high? Explain how this works?

Do you not think it is?
It seems reasonable to assume that anyone earning €60,000 plus should be in a position of some responsibility or other, does it not? So in that case 1 chief for every 5 indians seems quite excessive. If that's not the case then €60,000 plus for an indian also seems quite excessive. One way or another there seems to be a lot of excess.

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 04:13PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Well that can go two ways. They could decide:
"If I'm not getting one, nobody else is" - which will cause problems
or
"If I want to see one in 3 years, I'd better make sure by section is up to scratch."

my angle was more about "why should I keep giving 100%" when there is no benefit and that other guy is gonna paid €x,000 more than me for next 3 years despite doing less...

As for the whole morale argument I'd much rather see a bonus scheme combined with a smaller increments system, rather than straight increments, as it will reward both short term and longer term performance.

I agree reform is needed and it needs to be better managed

Riskymove · 05-03-2013 04:15PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Do you not think it is?

if the PS was one homogenous company, it probably would be

however, you have senior management across a large number of organisations

also supply and demand for specialised jobs like doctors and other health staff

antoobrien · 05-03-2013 04:21PM

Riskymove wrote: »

my angle was more about "why should I keep giving 100%" when there is no benefit and that other guy is gonna paid €x,000 more than me for next 3 years despite doing less...

It all depends on one's point of view I suppose. If any manager is looking at this from a selfish point of view, I would suggest that said person shouldn't be managing people.

Besides, I've never me a manager that does more work than I do (and they'll say the same about workers too).

sbsquarepants · 05-03-2013 04:29PM

Riskymove wrote: »

if the PS was one homogenous company, it probably would be

however, you have senior management across a large number of organisations

also supply and demand for specialised jobs like doctors and other health staff

I understand what you're saying and i agree up to a point. However i feel Ireland being Ireland and our wonderful politicians having basically bought votes over the years and indeed decades, that the whole system is very much out of kilter at this point.
The bulk of the work to be done in any enterprise is the donkey work, there are of course some specialised exceptions but based on these figures every department seems to be an exception, which just doesn't make sense. Maybe for a given department there needs to be a high percentage of high earners, but on average out of all the hundreds of thousands of people employed by the public sector - almost 20% can't be specialists or senior managers, that's just crazy.

Kevcol · 05-03-2013 04:50PM

We all filled out the same CAO forms in school (presumably). If you are so jealous of the 'excellent' pay category you lump everyone in the PS into maybe you should go back and fill it out again. I'm a teacher qualified since 2011 and when/if I eventually get a job I can assure you that I will not be on excellent pay for the work I will do. Certainly not enough to plan anything other than looking after myself for the foreseeable future.

Godge · 05-03-2013 05:28PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Do you not think it is?
It seems reasonable to assume that anyone earning €60,000 plus should be in a position of some responsibility or other, does it not? So in that case 1 chief for every 5 indians seems quite excessive. If that's not the case then €60,000 plus for an indian also seems quite excessive. One way or another there seems to be a lot of excess.

That is not the point. You were making the case that 1 in 6 earning more than €60,000 was high in the context of an average salary of around the mid-40s. I do not understand how you can reach this conclusion purely by a reference to chiefs and indians. Surely, at least a superficial analysis of public service pay structures would be needed to reach this conclusion?

Tell us the hourly rate of public servants.

Comments