What is the approproate level of pay for TDs ?

anymore · 06-05-2010 11:27am #1

What is the appropriate level of pay for TDs ? I dont doubt that many TDs do spend a lot ot time at their job, but i wonder what level of skill is required for the routine work they spend most of their time at and what is the appropriate level of salary for work of this type ?
I also assume that Tds secretaries do much of the routine work in constituencies.
Any ideas on this subject ?

Winty · 06-05-2010 11:34am

anymore wrote: »

What is the appropriate level of pay for TDs ? I dont doubt that many TDs do spend a lot ot time at their job, but i wonder what level of skill is required for the routine work they spend most of their time at and what is the appropriate level of salary for work of this type ?
I also assume that Tds secretaries do much of the routine work in constituencies.
Any ideas on this subject ?

The CEO of UK retailer John Lewis has his wage set at 10 times the pay of the lowest worker.

10 times for a TD is to much but maybe something like 3 times the wage of the lowest paid worker in the civil service

anymore · 06-05-2010 11:41am

Winty wrote: »

The CEO of UK retailer John Lewis has his wage set at 10 times the pay of the lowest.

Now 10 times for a TD is to much by may something like 3 times the wage of the lowest paid worker in the civil service

That is an intersting way of calculating a TDs salary.
I am kind of curious to examine the level of skill that is required to perform the routine work of a TD.
I am inclined to think that much of it is the kind of work that could be sone by a competent Personal Assistant to an executive rather than requiring the skills of an executive him or herself.
But perhaps i am just biased because I am not a politician. It would also be good to know exactly how the average TD spends his day.

Sulmac · 06-05-2010 11:49am

Whatever the salary is, it should be like in the US where any change in salary doesn't come into effect until after the next election. The only problem is that this counts for a decrease in salary as well as an increase.

Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

Sleepy · 06-05-2010 12:19pm

Does that lead to John Lewis having very high entry level wages I wonder? It'd certainly lead to Clerical Officers being even more over-paid here if TD's salaries were linked to theirs.

I'd like to see it tied to either GNP or median private sector wage fluctuating year on year with the previous year's performance.

Say twice times median private sector salary for a TD and three times that for Cabinet Ministers. I'd eliminate all pension entitlements, allowances and unvouched expenses and embed the compensation package in the constitution so a raise of the multipliers or granting of new allowances would require a referendum to pass.

Candidates shouldn't be running for election for personal enrichment imho. They shouldn't be so lowly paid as to leave them (even more?) open to corruption but if their own financial gain from the public coffers is a major concern for a candidate, they've lost my vote.

Nijmegen · 06-05-2010 12:33pm

Why not allow constituents to set their pay by vote, starting at average industrial wage and capped at whatever's the current maximum?

TD's are middle managers, link their pay as such. The pay they currently get is for company managing directors...

Though I disagree with his policies, I like that Joe Higgins puts his money where his mouth is and only takes the average industrial wage out of his salary for himself.

thebman · 06-05-2010 1:44pm

I think that the Germans politicians are paid appropriately. I can't remember what that was exactly but I remember reading about it before and it seemed fair enough.

Irish politicians are paid too much with overly generous expense accounts and it needs to be brought in line.

donkey balls · 06-05-2010 2:17pm

it should be around 50/60k per annum like middle mgmt in the private sector,and all expenses accounted for how many of them would stay in politics then?:rolleyes:
also a clock in system should be put in place.

ninty9er · 06-05-2010 9:08pm

It should be whatever the Independent Body on Higeher Pay in the Public Sector decides based on the private sector benchmarks.

The reason our politicians are so well paid is that everyone else is too.

Atlantic Dawn · 06-05-2010 9:14pm

Hard to decide really, we are a basket case, but I suppose to start out with if it was the average of pay for similar roles in other Eurozone countries that would be a step in the right direction, would probably equate to 60k or so. If they moan there's plenty of people will do it for the same money, me included

thebman · 06-05-2010 9:30pm

ninty9er wrote: »

It should be whatever the Independent Body on Higeher Pay in the Public Sector decides based on the private sector benchmarks.

The reason our politicians are so well paid is that everyone else is too.

Really, what about the unvouched expenses?

Their pay has always been excessive using the you won't get the best minds with poor pay illogical argument given the people making such statements.

We need passionate, intelligent politicians not greedy ones.

Not aiming at any party, generally our political system is filled with people that do not have the best interest of the country at heart or are incompetent at making decisions IMO.

ninty9er · 06-05-2010 9:50pm

thebman wrote: »

Really, what about the unvouched expenses?

No problem with changing this system, in fact I'm opposed to unvouched expenses.

Sulmac · 06-05-2010 9:52pm

thebman wrote: »

I think that the Germans politicians are paid appropriately. I can't remember what that was exactly but I remember reading about it before and it seemed fair enough.

It could have been here you read it.

edit: If only we had the same standard of ethics and accountability as Sweden (from the BBC News link):

It was under these laws that the then crown princess of the Social Democratic Party, Deputy Prime Minister Mona Sahlin, was forced in 1995 to relinquish her cabinet post following the discovery that she had used her ministerial credit card to buy nappies for her baby.

PeterIanStaker · 06-05-2010 10:03pm

thebman wrote: »

.

We need passionate, intelligent politicians not greedy ones.

Not aiming at any party, generally our political system is filled with people that do not have the best interest of the country at heart or are incompetent at making decisions IMO.

Very true. But the way the culture prevails here, there won't be passionate or intelligent politicians in this country, ever.

Pride Fighter · 06-05-2010 11:06pm

52k a year, thats 1 k a week. Expenses allowed but everything has to have receipts. That would be fair IMO. Pay the senators 800 per week with full expenses.

That would save a lot of money and also give the politicians a moral high ground to enact the necessary pay cuts on the higher paid civil servants who are bleeding this country dry.

piby · 07-05-2010 12:03am

In fairness, while I'm not advocating them getting huge salariesI'm not against them getting about €60,000 give or take with Ministers on maybe twice that. I still think being a TD is a tough enough job if you're doing it properly despite all the goings on of the last couple of years.

I've always admired Joe Higgins for taking significantly less. The truth is that no matter how honest and decent I think I am if the standard was €60,000 I don't think I'd turn around and ask for significantly less! Realistically would any of us?

LordSutch · 07-05-2010 12:05am

The current annual salary for an MP is £64766.

The_Minister · 07-05-2010 2:03am

thebman wrote: »

Really, what about the unvouched expenses?

Their pay has always been excessive using the you won't get the best minds with poor pay illogical argument given the people making such statements.

We need passionate, intelligent politicians not greedy ones.

Not aiming at any party, generally our political system is filled with people that do not have the best interest of the country at heart or are incompetent at making decisions IMO.

That's easy to say, but realistically if you are married with children you owe it to your family to go out and get a job that will allow you to support them.
Setting politician's pay too low forces competent people to seek better-paying jobs to support their families, and possibly leaves it open to the bored rich to seek election for fun.

If I was single, then yeah I wouldn't care too much about the pay, but if I had a family then that would be a different story.

Lemming · 07-05-2010 8:35am

The_Minister wrote: »

That's easy to say, but realistically if you are married with children you owe it to your family to go out and get a job that will allow you to support them.
Setting politician's pay too low forces competent people to seek better-paying jobs to support their families, and possibly leaves it open to the bored rich to seek election for fun.

If I was single, then yeah I wouldn't care too much about the pay, but if I had a family then that would be a different story.

Sorry, but since when did the electorate have a duty of care to prop up somebody else's lifestyle/choices? And your argument doesn't wash whatsoever. Plenty of people with families who are not politicians make do on significantly less (when I say 'plenty' I would imagine that to be 'most' given the outrageous salaries and expenses TDs are "entitled" to currently), so why are they to be held up on a pillar as some sort of paragon that we all must unquestioningly provide financial support for

Pot Noodle = · 07-05-2010 8:47am

€8.65 per hour + Vouched expenses + Travel pass {integrated]

ArseBurger · 07-05-2010 8:52am

Nijmegen wrote: »

TD's are middle managers, link their pay as such. The pay they currently get is for company managing directors...

You must know some pretty crappy managing directors...

thebman · 07-05-2010 9:36am

The_Minister wrote: »

That's easy to say, but realistically if you are married with children you owe it to your family to go out and get a job that will allow you to support them.
Setting politician's pay too low forces competent people to seek better-paying jobs to support their families, and possibly leaves it open to the bored rich to seek election for fun.

If I was single, then yeah I wouldn't care too much about the pay, but if I had a family then that would be a different story.

If you can't support a family on 70,000 a year and vouched expenses, your doing it wrong.

If the person has that many children that this isn't enough, they probably aren't the people to be electing given they won't have time to govern because they will be too busy looking after their kids.

BluePlanet · 07-05-2010 10:42am

I'd like to see a crack down on travel expenses.
In my ideal world, a politician would have to take public transportation.
Like in Sweden (iirc).
However I understand there are situations where that is not possible so some provison of travel expenses must be made.

Maybe there should be a simple cap on travel expenses, on a graduating scale that gets smaller the longer their tenure.

Maybe there should also be a quota for public transportation use, that must be met monthly; failure to ahere would see a penatly when claiming travel expenses.

Riskymove · 07-05-2010 10:49am

tbh I'd like to move away from the fixation on pay rates and have a proper review of what it is we want a TD to do.....once we have that we can look at what that work is worth

anymore · 07-05-2010 11:03am

Riskymove wrote: »

tbh I'd like to move away from the fixation on pay rates and have a proper review of what it is we want a TD to do.....once we have that we can look at what that work is worth

I would agree veryt much with this. I think you need to analyse what it is a TD actually does - and much of this his taxpayer paid for secreatary does- and see what level of skill is involved and what level of pay it merits. I think we need to take into acount the level of responsibility a TD accepts also.
If we are to have TDs who always respects the party whip, then that is i suggest a lower level of responsibility than their constituents would want and should be reflected in lower pay. The insticnts of many of our TDs appears to be that of a docile herd animal.

anymore · 07-05-2010 11:55am

Riskymove wrote: »

tbh I'd like to move away from the fixation on pay rates and have a proper review of what it is we want a TD to do.....once we have that we can look at what that work is worth

I would agree veryt much with this. I think you need to analyse what it is a TD actually does - and much of this his taxpayer paid for secreatary does- and see what level of skill is involved and what level of pay it merits. I think we need to take into acount the level of responsibility a TD accepts also.
If we are to have TDs who always respects the party whip, then that is i suggest a lower level of responsibility than their constituents would want and should be reflected in lower pay. The insticnts of many of our TDs appears to be that of a docile herd animal.

dynamick · 07-05-2010 12:19pm

Winty wrote: »

The CEO of UK retailer John Lewis has his wage set at 10 times the pay of the lowest worker.

John Lewis doesn't have a CEO. It is a partnership.

The Managing Director of John Lewis is Andy Street who was paid 500K with a 100k bonus in 2008. The chairman was paid 830k last year with a bonus of 94K and a pension from age 60 of 168k/year.

Just read their annual reports.

I am not trying to prove you wrong just pointing out that salaries may be higher than you think.

If you cut politician pay you will attract an even worse crop of candidates.This would cost the country money rather than save money. It would be stupid and would only serve to satisfy public envy.

I would like to see higher salaries for TDs combined with a system of complete financial transparency (bank statements on the web) and where any discovery of corruption would lead to having to repay their salaries and losing their pensions.

John Lewis is a company with a multi-billion pound turnover. They pay the boss a comparatively small salary of half a million. I don't see why government should be any different.

Stabshauptmann · 07-05-2010 12:49pm

If I can rely on Wikipedia, a TD's current Salary is €100k, plus an approx €41.5k in expenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachta_D%C3%A1la#Salaries_and_expenses

Now I dont know how allowances and expenses work in the public sector, but A TD's salary appears to be that of (one of the grades of) an Assisstant Secretary; the third highest PS grade.
http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/downloads/Circular_28-2009_Pay_Scales_effective_1-Jan-2010.pdf

Or another way of looking at it, is that their pay is approx 2.5 times that of the average public sector worker
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=PSA01.asp&TableName=Public+Sector+Average+Weekly+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_PS

How does this compare with the private sector?
Mid management in my firm were on 60-100k in 2007; I have no idea what it is now.
Top bank executives in 2007 by comparison were on €3m - banks participating in the government grantee scheme must cap executives' pay at €500k

If you ask me, a bank executives' job is far, far more difficult than a TDs.

My personal opinion on what a TD should be paid:

95k basic salary - it is a difficult job and one takes a lot of risk entering politics

No expenses other than travel on approved, necessary, international trips.

Definitely no constituency office allowance - I would find it easier to assess my TDs commitment by seeing what work he does out of his own pocket. One of the things I remember most from the expense "scandal" was a TD who claimed for a contribution he made to the GAA - saying that if he didnt his "competition" would have. His competition is unelected; an incumbent TD has an extremely unfair advantage imo.

I want to make it impossible for him to draw his TD's salary until he hits 60 and/or for the salary to be proportional to the amount of time spent in office.. Wining one term in office then drawing a TDs salary for the rest of his life is obscene and irrational.

Winty · 07-05-2010 3:41pm

dynamick wrote: »

The Managing Director of John Lewis is Andy Street who was paid 500K with a 100k bonus in 2008. The chairman was paid 830k last year with a bonus of 94K and a pension from age 60 of 168k/year.

Just read their annual reports.

I am not trying to prove you wrong just pointing out that salaries may be higher than you think.

Hi Dynamick

Looks like I was incorrect to state 10 times, but Andy Streets salary is based on a multiplying scale based against the lowest paid worker

The top six directors are received 15 times the average pay earned by the employees, up from 14 the previous year. The increase they received in this one year is the amount earned by one employee working two years.

http://www.solhaam.org/articles/johnle.html

Nijmegen · 07-05-2010 4:19pm

ArseBurger wrote: »

You must know some pretty crappy managing directors...

Stick your nose into the salary surveys from companies like Manpower, and the average pay of a managing director of an SMB is around 120k, with performance related bonuses I'm sure. But 10k a month for TD's (because their jobs are not equatable with MD's, not in the least) is far too much.

Nijmegen · 07-05-2010 4:26pm

It's worth noting, that you are looking at MD's for large companies. The vast majority of companies are small. A company with an annual turnover of 10,000,000 for example might have a gross margin of 20%, or 2,000,000. In that context, an MD getting pay of 120,000 - which is actually 135,000 or something in costs to the company - equates to 6% of profit spent on the MD.

That's quite a bit, depending on the business. And it's more realistic figures than looking at the likes of John Lewis.

thebman · 07-05-2010 5:35pm

anymore wrote: »

I would agree veryt much with this. I think you need to analyse what it is a TD actually does - and much of this his taxpayer paid for secreatary does- and see what level of skill is involved and what level of pay it merits. I think we need to take into acount the level of responsibility a TD accepts also.
If we are to have TDs who always respects the party whip, then that is i suggest a lower level of responsibility than their constituents would want and should be reflected in lower pay. The insticnts of many of our TDs appears to be that of a docile herd animal.

Talking about responsibility, there is no accountability for mistakes at the moment.

This means they have virtually no responsibilities since they are never properly held accountable for their decisions.

So its not public envy of their wages as another poster suggested, it is that they don't appear to be responsible for anything that goes wrong that is why they can't justify their current pay levels.

I also disagree that we would get worse politicians if we reduce wages. I think we would get better politicians TBH. At the moment, we are clearly attracting the wrong type of person to the job. Running the country should be seen as a position of immense pride, responsibility and rewarding in itself and not require a high wage.

The high wage attracts people that have no pride in their country, desire no responsibility and merely want the rewards of the position rather than to do their best for their country. This is the worst type of person to have running the country in my opinion.

pfy2k · 07-05-2010 8:31pm

50k for backbenchers, 100k for the Prime Minister!

donkey balls · 07-05-2010 9:54pm

a couole of months ago i watch the dail transport commitee interveiw MOL, the CEO of Aerlingus&the CEO of the DAA.

I think it was micheal kennady and a few others that stated that Aerlingus needed hanger 6 for maintenance for their 747,MOL had to piont out that aerlingus has not used 747 in over 15 years.
for me you would have thought that these morans would have done their homework/due diligence:mad: just look at the clowens we have at present there salary should be halfed.

ArseBurger · 11-05-2010 7:15am

Nijmegen wrote: »

Stick your nose into the salary surveys from companies like Manpower, and the average pay of a managing director of an SMB is around 120k, with performance related bonuses I'm sure. But 10k a month for TD's (because their jobs are not equatable with MD's, not in the least) is far too much.

I would hardly call Ireland an SMB.

PomBear · 11-05-2010 7:53am

Sinn Féin elected reps get an average industrial wage and they seem to do their best on it

Nijmegen · 11-05-2010 9:02am

ArseBurger wrote: »

I would hardly call Ireland an SMB.

The responsibilities of a TD are a lot less than those of a managing director, I would say.

ArseBurger · 11-05-2010 6:59pm

Nijmegen wrote: »

The responsibilities of a TD are a lot less than those of a managing director, I would say.

I would say no.

donkey balls · 11-05-2010 7:42pm

ArseBurger wrote: »

I would say no.

i take it your joking with the above comment:rolleyes:

Nijmegen · 11-05-2010 10:20pm

ArseBurger wrote: »

I would say no.

We shall have to disagree, though I may point out that a TD weilds no executive power, is at best a lobbyist and a spokesperson for his constituency, and is not even held to any level of obligation to carry out any duties during his or her term in office, minus the need to be re-elected. Some TD's show up to only the votes they are whipped to vote in.

A TD does not deserve the same sort of pay as somebody running a company, both for reasons of duties and because a TD should not be there for the money. History has shown us that many of them, clearly, have been there mainly for that, and I am not inclined to believe the story that all that has changed, having heard it once every five to ten years in between major scalpings.

anymore · 15-05-2010 9:03pm

Nijmegen wrote: »

We shall have to disagree, though I may point out that a TD weilds no executive power, is at best a lobbyist and a spokesperson for his constituency, and is not even held to any level of obligation to carry out any duties during his or her term in office, minus the need to be re-elected. Some TD's show up to only the votes they are whipped to vote in.

A TD does not deserve the same sort of pay as somebody running a company, both for reasons of duties and because a TD should not be there for the money. History has shown us that many of them, clearly, have been there mainly for that, and I am not inclined to believe the story that all that has changed, having heard it once every five to ten years in between major scalpings.

Jim MDaid has added to our knowledge of how little respect TDs themselves have for the job they are supposed to do.
The basic qualification for being a TD is a capacity for climbing the greasy pole of Cumann politics and often whether Daddy or Mammy7 or Uncle or Ainty are or were TDS.

hallelujajordan · 16-05-2010 10:26am

anymore wrote: »

Jim MDaid has added to our knowledge of how little respect TDs themselves have for the job they are supposed to do.
.

Jim McDaid represents Jim McDaid. . He is not representative of your 'average' TD, and it is foolish to consider him so.

thebman wrote: »

Talking about responsibility, there is no accountability for mistakes at the moment.

This means they have virtually no responsibilities since they are never properly held accountable for their decisions.

So its not public envy of their wages as another poster suggested, it is that they don't appear to be responsible for anything that goes wrong that is why they can't justify their current pay levels.

No accountability ? ? ? I would have thought that having to compete for your job in an open market at least once every 5 years is a pretty high level of accountability. . It certainly not something I have to do !

anymore · 16-05-2010 11:14am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Jim McDaid represents Jim McDaid. . He is not representative of your 'average' TD, and it is foolish to consider him so.

No accountability ? ? ? I would have thought that having to compete for your job in an open market at least once every 5 years is a pretty high level of accountability. . It certainly not something I have to do !

A few FF TDs who come to mind are Wille O Dea and Beverly Copper Flynn; how do you assess them ?

As for accounability, a few FF TDs come to mind ......:eek:
Wahts your point ?

hallelujajordan · 17-05-2010 12:24am

anymore wrote: »

A few FF TDs who come to mind are Wille O Dea and Beverly Copper Flynn; how do you assess them ?

I have criticised both on here in the past . . but fundamentally I believe they are capable politicians . . . but really, it doesn't matter what I think, they were elected to represent their respective constituencies and they will answer to their constituency the next time around.

anymore wrote: »

As for accounability, a few FF TDs come to mind ......:eek:
Wahts your point ?

My point is that accountability rests with the electorate . . . we call it democracy !

thebman · 17-05-2010 1:07am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

My point is that accountability rests with the electorate . . . we call it democracy !

Yes my point would be that the laws aren't strict enough on politicians misuse of funds and they get to take the piss on expenses etc...

These are not things the electorate can stop if all politicians share the common interest of keeping their no questions asked expense accounts and dodgy favors for consituents to keep votes and odd planning decisions etc...

There is no accountabilty. The electorate shouldn't be making sure that politicians don't do these things, the law should. The electorate are busy earning the tax money for the politicians to burn at the moment.

femur61 · 17-05-2010 7:32am

Does it really matter what we think? The TD's take the p*&ss out off the ordinary people in this country. It is hard to listen to Brian Cowen et al. when they say we have to be innovative and get this country back on its feet. Why, so they can get inflated wages and we pay higher taxes to keep them in a lifestyle so far removed from the ordinary person that they live in a bubble.

What is the approproate level of pay for TDs ?

Comments