Public Service bashing sticks at the ready, call to "benchmark pay again"

Freddie59 wrote: »

Are you talking public or private sector?

BTW sorry about your pay, but this is the reality. Your employer cannot afford to pay you even the wage you are on. Something has to give.

Obviously I'm talking about the Private Sector, every Public Sector worker has taken a pay cut.

Tens of thousands of private sector folk haven't taken a cut at all and the irony regarding those that have taken a pay cut is that they pay even less tax to try and get us out of this state. Whereas my take home pay is down 20% and every single cent of that 20% goes back to the exchequer to be redistributed to where it's needed the most.

The Govt can afford my wages, they have already cut my wages to a level that they can afford without my permission (another thing that only happens in PS).

SeanW wrote: »

Try paying it with the dole, which many in the private sector (i.e. the people who pay your wages) have had to do.

So who is paying your dole ? The workers in BOTH sectors.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Loads of public sector folk have lost their jobs too mate. Would it make you happier if loads more lost their jobs too?

The Civil Service were recruiting there last week, only 3,200 people went for the jobs, they were disgusted given that there's 450,000 unemployed so even if we take it that ALL those applicants were unemployed (which they obviously aren't) then 149 out of every 150 unemployed people weren't bothered applying.

According to the CSO public sector administration, education and health and social services have added 6.7% jobs 07-11.

If we isolate only "Public administration and defence; compulsory social security" we see a 2.05% decrease net.

Apart from non-permanent positions, IE contracts of a defined or loose duration by their nature, how many jobs have been lost bar retirements?

(And by the way, I disagree with the recruitment embargo. I think we should be shutting quangos and replacing nurses and teachers rather than just letting whomever goes go, regardless of operational knock on.)

Rabidlamb wrote: »

You've had cuts . . . . hmmm
Where I work 3 quarters of us got laid off in 2009 & the remainder have had 25% pay cuts.
Hearing the Public Service hark on about their pension contribution does my head in, I've been paying 8% into one for the past 13 years & it would have done better if I'd put it in the credit union.
Meanwhile your elder colleagues were looking forward to a €30k pension with their golden handshake after contributing nothing.
It annoys me & should annoy you too.

Hopefully a mass exodus of this protectionist class may force the government to lift the embargo.
I hope you fare well in the full-time hiring process.

Thank you for proving my earlier post.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Brilliant! The simple rule of thumb when it comes to portraying the public sector versus the private sector is inherent in that e-mail... and is as follows:

Take the BEST case scenario within the public service and make believe that everyone in the public sector has similar pay and conditions (in this case that we all get paid over 200k or think it's small beans to be earning).

Then you take the WORST case scenario with the private sector and make believe that everyone in the private sector has similar pay and conditions.

By the way... explain your pension comments because it doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about which isn't surprising seeing as the public are fed lies on an almost daily basis.

In the real world in the private sector, last week i took in 30 euro, the week before, 80 euro.

MysticalRain wrote: »

That was discussed here in the Work & Jobs forum. Apparently those jobs were mainly niche roles that 99% of the 450k on the dole would not have been qualified to do anyway.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77034426

You're right, seems like a niche role alright.

There is a widespread belief that, particularly when pension entitlements and job security are taken into account, public employees in Ireland are still better off than their private sector neighbours.

^ Indo hack\wanker speak for "We have no tangible proof, etc"

Big thick Bertie gave the public sector 20% benchmarking increases in 2003. Big thick Mary O'Rourke gave the ESB 15% wage increases, no questions asked. The two of them should be put into stocks and rotten fruit thrown at them in every village green in Ireland

Ally Dick wrote: »

Big thick Bertie gave the public sector 20% benchmarking increases in 2003. Big thick Mary O'Rourke gave the ESB 15% wage increases, no questions asked. The two of them should be put into stocks and rotten fruit thrown at them in every village green in Ireland

Well done for picking a percentage from your hole.

Have you actually read either of the benchmarking reports?

There were hundreds of different job grades assessed. Some got large percentage rises whilst others got minimal ones.

Looks like Big thick Bertie has a new companion

Rabidlamb wrote: »

You've had cuts . . . . hmmm
Where I work 3 quarters of us got laid off in 2009 & the remainder have had 25% pay cuts.

So what you're saying is that we've both received an approx 25% reduction in earnings over the past two years? And yet you're on here having a go? This illustrates the double standards in the debate: you receive cutbacks and shout it to the rooftops, I receive similar cutbacks and its ignored. You receive cutbacks in a sector where many have escaped them; I receive them in a sector where everyone has taken some hit. And yet you blather on about the sufferings of the private sector while negating the cutbacks suffered by the private sector.

Again, I'm not here to defend the PS per se, but rather to defend it against sweeping generalisations and ill-considered attacks.

Hearing the Public Service hark on about their pension contribution does my head in, I've been paying 8% into one for the past 13 years & it would have done better if I'd put it in the credit union.

So what? It was part of our terms and conditions and it was changed, resulting in a significant reduction in our take home pay. We're essentially paying on average 10% more for the same service. Pensions are still an attractive aspect of the PS, and I'm not moaning about the levy, but it's absurd to pretend that it wasn't a cut.

Meanwhile your elder colleagues were looking forward to a €30k pension with their golden handshake after contributing nothing.
It annoys me & should annoy you too.

It doesn't annoy me that blocklayers earned up to €100 000 pa at the height of the boom, and it doesn't annoy me that teachers received high wages either. I think, in both cases, the wages were too high and had to come down, but why would I attack individual members of each for taking what was offered?

I do consider that teaching (and other) Unions have to bear a significant part for their actions during the Celtic Tiger, but it could hardly be expected that an individual teacher or blocklayer or whatever would voluntarily return pay increases to the exchequer which is what some here appear to expect.

I hope you fare well in the full-time hiring process.

Why thank you.

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Now I like a bit of Public Service bashing as much as the next man.

Just for the sake of it?

I do admire those who come on to defend the indefensible.

In afirness, i don't think anyone in this thread has done any such thing. Indeed, I've merely pointed out that I've received the same cutbacks as you. How is it that your experiences of austerity are legitimate concerns, but mine aren't?

I sense that some of them are as frustrated as us with their upper echelons who are on a multiple of their salary just based on time served & not ability or dedication.

I'm frustrated with some aspects of the PS to be sure. I started a thread criticising teaching unions in the education forum back in Septermber where I ventedsome of those frustrations. I'm nore frustrated however by those who use the pretence of a debate on the public sector as an excuse to mindlessly attack the public sector, without any recourse to stats or evidence. When I'm teaching English or History I constrantly emphasise the need for evidence to back points or arguments- it appears that some on here obviously had teachers who didn't share my approach to those subjects!

From an economic perspective everyone should be paid as little as possible. That includes everyone from binmen to bureaucrats to company directors, regardless of which sector they work in. Any other approach fails in the long run.

As I understand it, the public sector has very little churn of permanent staff, except under the exceptional circumstances we have at the moment with people retiring early due to changes in Ts&Cs. This makes it very difficult to adjust wages over time to take account of changes in the job markets as happens with the more dynamic parts of the private sector (e.g. IT).

I don't know whether more churn is the solution, but if it isn't, then there ought to be some other more public-service-y method for adjusting wage levels to strike the right balance between underpay (can't recruit quality staff) and overpay (sucks talent from the private sector, gives crappy value for money, damages public finances).

Ironically, the part of the public service where there is the greatest scope for applying private sector HR practices is in dealing with highly qualified medical professionals, e.g. hospital consultants. There is a very dynamic global market in these skills, and consultants are big and ugly enough to fight their corners individually without needing the defence of unions. And yet we grossly overpay these people. WTF?

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Say it again out loud with a straight face.



It's a bit early for scotch old bean.



We all have bad days at the office, you were better than this yesterday.
Deep breath, clear head & try again.

Counter my arguments then.

1. Every position within the Civil Service is filled by competitive interview.

2. Given that top Civil Servants have thousands of staff, annual turnover/budgets in the billions, and are responsible for running a country not one of them is paid more than 200k. Someone doing their job in the private sector would be paid multiples of what they're on.

staker wrote: »

I don't understand how you perceive yourself as having taken a wage cut as you haven't started employment yet
You're going to feel doubly hard done by if or when there are more cuts implemented down the line.

Salaries for teachers have been cut over the past two years. Next year, when I'm receiving a teacher's salary I'll be affected by that cut. I don't see myself as having taken a wage cut, but as being affected by them, but the difference is really pedantic.

Noopti wrote: »

Since when do people in an organisation have to be on the same money?

Generally speaking, people doing the exact same jobs in the same organisation with almost identical experience within that organisation get paid the same amount. I'd find it incredible that that were otherwise the case.

You join in 2012 - here is the current renumeration package for the position that is open, based on what value is deemed you can add to the organisation.

If that were the case I'd have no issue with it. However, it's not about the relative value that is added to the organisation, but rather about the government focusing on new teachers because we're seen as an easier target.

I don't give a monkeys if Harry next door got a better deal, he joined when there was a better deal and perhaps he is just a better candidate. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else.

If Harry next door was a better candidate I'd have no problem with him receiving an extra 10%. However, that's not the case. I could be an infinitely better teacher than Harry and yet would be on better terms and conditions purely based on the fact that I was born a year after him. That's not fair. I'm not arguing that it should be reversed though. I've accepted it. It's the way things are and I'll just get on with it. I take issue though with the notion that you're pushing, that somehow it's fair and equitable, and somehow part and parcel of life outside the public service. Because, some specific instances aside, that's pure bogus and you know it.

Incidentally, I've worked in the private sector before I decided to become a teacher. Never was I in a position whereby I earned less than someone else purely based on the a difference of 12 months in the dates we joined.

This is how it works in private companies and this is how it should work in the public sector also. You get paid based on your value. ie: The strength of your qualification(s), your experience (and not just years service, actual quantifiable experience), your skills, your past achievements etc.

I don't disagree. I don't know who you're debating but it evidently isn't me. I have a degree, a masters, and I'll soon have the equivalent of a hDip. Next year I could be working alongside a teacher who only has a degree, and who might be a shoddy teacher, and I'd earn less than him purely on the basis that he started last September and I started 12 months later.

You know as well as I do that such systems do not generally pertain in the private sector.

This idea of year 0 = x, year 1 = x, year 10= x is nonsense. You get paid what you are worth, and it is up to you to make yourself worth what it is you deem is a good salary.

Again, who are you arguing with? I'll ge paid 10% next year not because I'm worth 10% less but because I started 12 months after someone else. It's nothing at all to do with "earning" a place on the payscale, but being granted one by dint of the fact that you got in a few months earlier. I repeat, it's nothing to do with worth or vale to the organisation. I'd have no issue with differentials based on such criteria.

By the way, my wife works in the public sector (hospital - frontline services), and it annoys the hell out of me that she is competent in say five different disciplines in her department and gets X salary, and someone else who can only do say two different disciplines gets the same. Why? Because they have been working there the same amount of time. It just doesn't make any sense in the real world.

I agree. It's silly to me too. But it's what you're effectively arguing for in the initial part of your post.

doomed,

At last a bit of sense, thanks.