Wow, amazing powers of deduction and mathematical prowess there. The salary scales are all published AFAIK, so there's no secret about how much any increment is.
It wasn't me that brought up the PMDS system and increments, I was just rebutting the assertion that very few people receive them. I have nothing wrong with people getting pay raises as long as they are deserved and justified. This doesn't seem to be the case with the PMDS system.
nobody made that assertion
unfortunately the usual argument made on this basis is that no one deserves one
well it doesn't really as that is the gross figure
over half would likely be recouped immediately
Your post read as a defence of the increments system for the "few" that receive them. I think that until they implement a proper working system and considering the financial position of the country they should be put on hold.
We can only work with the figures we are given by the govt which is €250 million. We also hear one reason not to get rid of increments is because it would be unfair to the lower paid staff, they would not be losing 50% of their pay raise to tax.
I don't see how it could be
I simply set out that far less than the entire 300,000 would get an increment
I said nothing about whether or not they are deserved
I wonder what you would consider a 'proper working system'? Is this simply based on an assumption that a large amount of people dont deserve one?
because it suits your position? of course I understand why you would do that
its simply reality that tax, prsi, pension levies etc are applied to PS wages
surely you would accept that there is a gross and net cost here?
That position is based on the fact that most of the lower paid are on longer scales than those on higher pay and therefore most of the number of increments are paid to lower paid
However, the smaller number of higher paid people can skew the overall amount
Lower paid may not lose 50% to PAYE maybe, but other things are paid as I said above
also the lower paid would be getting lower increments
You have a job.
If you didn't would you rather sit on the scratcher and not apply for these jobs?
Your comment about doing nothing and having clueless management just because its the public service is the usual broad brush stroke nonsense.
Not everybody or every dept. conforms to your rubbish stereotype
Where exactly have I implied that?
I would image the vast majority of people on the dole are under qualified for these jobs.
I don't really see the point of this thread, 3200 people is alot of applicants.
I do think 30k is too much for a graduate though, your not really worth a whole lot till you build up experience.
The only thing that this thread highlights to me is that the public service are offering too much to graduates, especially when you take the security of the job into account
True, I would just say that a higher than average number conform to it. I'm basing my opinion on what I have been told by family members and friends who have worked in the public service
Did you actually read the job spec for these roles? The minimum requirement was an honours degree, but for the accounting roles it clearly stated professional accounting qualifications would be an advantage - in other words they only want qualified accountants. Ditto the law roles, they want qualified solicitors. Ditto HR roles, they want people who have CIPD qualifications.
Also, the interview stage is a competency based interview, meaning candidates have to be able to demonstrate proficiency in particular competencies from their work experience to date.
So in other words, they have no intention of hiring graduates, if it's anything like the competition I came in on, the successful candidates will be in their mid to late 20's, with degrees, masters and professional qualifications, as well as real world experience in the relevant profession. IMHO 30k is a bargain for that level of personnel, and the only reason they have as many as 3,200 applicants is because of the shortage of work in the professions presently, along with the job security and the incremental salary.
Also, for law anyways, they usually insist on x number of years pqe, typically 4 or more. Not surprising therefore that grads wouldn't apply for a job they don't have the experience for.
Did we ever get an answer to how many jobs they were actually applying for?
It depends on the department. Some have more positions for AO than others do.
I'm graduating in 2013 and expect less than €30,000. However starting salary isn't everything and a lot of people would have the perception that the civil service isn't great in terms of career opportunities. Plus if you want to work there at some point in the future you can always work in the private sector and then apply to the civil service at a higher grade.
Also I don't get the relevance of your last comment. Most of the graduate positions I've been looking at offer lower pay in Ireland than in the UK.
edit: from looking at the above comments it also seems that ideally they want someone a bit more experienced than a graduate
Source for the 250 million?
On the phone at the moment, the minister gave that figure in response to a question in the Dail in the last year.
Just because only 1% of the people applying will be hired doesn't mean everyone has a 1% chance... some people in the 3,200 have a less than 1% chance, and some are practically shoo-ins... Anyone who can't figure that out probably won't do great in the aptitude test!
Good one - I replied to you at 11:38 p.m. last night, so I was in my cushy chair at home If that's your attitude towards the public sector I kinda hope you don't get a job there TBH.
Considering you decided to join the thread to have a mope for yourself rather than actually contribute anything, it's a bit rich for you to say my post was useless - I corrected a logical error in the previous two posts.
Back on topic though; I'd be surprised if they don't hire as many as a couple of hundred AOs through this competition, so even with a wonky understanding of probability, the odds may be better than you thought!