Job losses - public sector

femur61

I can't understand the blantant stupidity of the public sector. Maybe that is a bit strong, but I feel very strongly about this issue. Instead of having a job for life why don't a few (a lot) get sacked and then they wouldn't have the cut backs which a lot of well deserved departments are experiencing e.g healthcare and education.

achtungbarry

oooh, a public sector bashing thread, haven't seen one of these in a while :rolleyes:

femur61 wrote: »

I can't understand the blantant stupidity of the public sector.

Sweeping generalisations don't help any argument.


For the record, i am a public servant and I believe there should be a root and branch review of the public service and all the "dead wood" should be sacked.

They give me a bad name and I have no time for them.

As for the levy, I am more than prepared to pay my levy and do my bit and more again if needed down the line.

I favour freezing increments for as long as is needed.

I favour making public servants more sackable because yes there are people in the public service at all levels who I would sack today starting with the fat arse do nothings at the top as followed by those lower down the ranks. If you do a good job, you have nothing to worry about, if you are a lazy f###er..... Adios !

Ste.phen

I know this has probably been done to death somewhere else but can someone explain the concept of 'increments' to me? It sounded like automatic pay raises given for length of service, without any appraisal or increase in responsibility. Does that sound right?
I fully understand the 'grade' system (though think it's archaic) where the pay raises come with extra work and responsibility, but the increments seem suspiciously like getting paid more for just hanging around.
Surely that doesn't help with the 'deadwood' problem mentioned before?

(and i've head a PS worker before say that because moving up a grade isn't always possible for (essentially) internal political reasons, that they need the increments to have any sense of progression - but surely the problem there is that 'internal politics' are allowed justify progression?)

femur61

For the record, i am a public servant and I believe there should be a root and branch review of the public service and all the "dead wood" should be sacked.


I have plenty of inlaws who work in the public sector and I know they work hard, but some of them who work in the HSE tell me of people who still get paid even though the jobs are else where done now by other people. These people are at the top end of the wages and work a two day week but get paid a full week.

jimmmy

achtungbarry wrote: »

.
For the record, i am a public servant and I believe there should be a root and branch review of the public service and all the "dead wood" should be sacked.

They give me a bad name and I have no time for them.

Well done. You are fully correct. They do give you a very bad name, but well done for suggesting a constructive way out of it.

P. Breathnach

femur61 wrote: »

For the record, i am a public servant and I believe there should be a root and branch review of the public service and all the "dead wood" should be sacked...

Some of the problems that exist in the public service are structural, and the structural issues should be addressed first.

If a person is paid for doing a non-job, it is not necessarily the fault of that individual; it might be due to somebody a level or two higher up in the organisation empire-building (you have more status if you have 18 people in your unit rather than perhaps the 10 who would be sufficient to deal with the workload). Non-jobs should, of course, be abolished. But it is not always the case that those who have been given no work are the ones who should go.

ParkRunner

It's all well and good to sack 5,000/10,000 civil/public servants but I personally can't see what this will achieve in the short term. Where I work, we have lost staff who are being re-deployed to areas like social welfare, there will be no cover for those leaving on term time, staff who retire are not being replaced and many on contracts are not having their contracts renewed so numbers are definitely falling.

Where waste exists by all means I agree it should be tackled but if as much energy was put into innovation and job creation in the private sector as there currently is in criticising the public sector, then the current economic situation could be a lot more bearable for all.

Gurgle

Ste.phen wrote: »

can someone explain the concept of 'increments' to me? It sounded like automatic pay raises given for length of service, without any appraisal or increase in responsibility. Does that sound right?

Yes, thats what increments are.
And they're exactly the same in the private sector. In any factory two people on the same shift running the same machines aren't paid the same - the person who is there longer earns more.

Typically (both private and public) increments are in the region of inflation + 2%, so not making too many millionaires.

In the public sector, the increments work out much less in the long term. After you've been a teacher / guard / nurse for over 10 years your pay reaches a plateau (not a very high one) and you'll be earning pretty much the same (counting inflation) when you retire 30 years later.

Of course its different for admin staff in the public sector - you can keep getting nominal promotions (and real pay-rises) for 40 years while still doing exactly the same job. There are entire offices full of managers and assistant managers who don't actually have any subordinates.

jimmmy

EF wrote: »

Where waste exists by all means I agree it should be tackled

One of the the biggest wastes is the pay and pensions....it surely could not be called anything other than wasteful ( for the Irish taxpayer / wealth creating sector ) to tolerate the current situation where we have Nora the nurse , Gerry the Gaurd and Paddy the public servant being paid 40% more than their counterparts in Berlin, Birmingham and Boston ?

Gurgle

jimmmy wrote: »

Nora the nurse , Gerry the Gaurd and Paddy the public servant being paid 40% more than their counterparts in Berlin, Birmingham and Boston ?

Got anything to back this up?

jimmmy

It was in one of the Sunday broadsheets a week or two ago. Its well know our public sector wage rates are way out of line. At the bottom, the dole in this country is more than the minimum wage in the UK. At the top, our Taoiseach is paid more than the President of USA, Germany, France or thep.m. of the UK...all much much bigger, industrialised nations. Get real. Our public finances are unsustainable.

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

It was in one of the Sunday broadsheets a week or two ago. Its well know our public sector wage rates are way out of line. At the bottom, the dole in this country is more than the minimum wage in the UK. At the top, our Taoiseach is paid more than the President of USA, Germany, France or thep.m. of the UK...all much much bigger, industrialised nations. Get real. Our public finances are unsustainable.

Seen the prices in USA, Germany, France and the UK?

All Irish workers are paid more than their international counterparts.

ParkRunner

If public sector job cuts did occur those losing their jobs would be entitled to a redundancy package and social welfare. Whatever money is left over in surplus..where should this be spent? It appears that we will have to pump another €7bn or so into the banks before they start supporting businesses again.

The big difference between the boom years and the current times is that tax revenue has collapsed and until the banks start lending again, expenditure cuts will go some way to balance the books but it is not the solution.

RealityCheck

dresden8 wrote: »

Seen the prices in USA, Germany, France and the UK?

All Irish workers are paid more than their international counterparts.

Ah yes but we are the most indebted people in Europe. So many people bought into the property bubble which has since collapsed. These very same people have to keep up mortgage repayments on the value of their houses when they bought them.
A person who is on 25k per annum might well be able to pay more tax than someone on 40k per annum simply because they dont have a mortgage. Unless we are to pay tax on a case by case basis (which is impossible) the cuts cannot be fair and equitable. It is simply impossible.

jimmmy

dresden8 wrote: »

Seen the prices in USA, Germany, France and the UK?

Yes. If the private sector did not have to support such an expensive public sector here ( where do you think our high rate of vat, excise duty , vrt etc goes to ? ) then prices would undoubtably be lower. As I said, its well know our public sector wage rates are way out of line. Our public finances are unsustainable.

nice_guy80

right... blame the public sector

the public sector more or less dragged the country thorugh the 80s and early 90s with their taxes

now they are being blamed for draining the country

there is a lot of waste in the public sector, but most of that has been caused by government policies, indifference and bloated spending and silly budgets

jimmmy

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the public sector more or less dragged the country thorugh the 80s and early 90s with their taxes

Who paid the taxes to sustain the public service then ?

nice_guy80 wrote: »

there is a lot of waste in the public sector, but most of that has been caused by government policies, indifference and bloated spending and silly budgets

Most of it ? What about the fact the pay is way out of line with every other public sector in the world ?

yabadabado

the higher grades in the public service are paid huge wages put anyone in the lower grades or recent entrants are pooply paid.i think a new CO in the civil service wouldnt have €420 net at the end of the week

*Honey*

Gurgle wrote: »

Of course its different for admin staff in the public sector - you can keep getting nominal promotions (and real pay-rises) for 40 years while still doing exactly the same job. There are entire offices full of managers and assistant managers who don't actually have any subordinates.

Wrong. Where do people get these ideas from? I work in education admin and believe me, I have not gotten a nominal promotion ever in my life, I worked hard and sat in front of an 6 person interview board for 90 minutes sweating buckets to get any promotion I've gotten. I work hard and my team does too.

As was said previously, sweeping generalisations do not help anyone making a rational argument.

dresden8

jimmmy wrote: »

Yes. If the private sector did not have to support such an expensive public sector here ( where do you think our high rate of vat, excise duty , vrt etc goes to ? ) then prices would undoubtably be lower.

Crap. Ireland is the most profitable country for retailers in Europe, if not the world. They coined it because idiots were prepared to pay it.

BroomBurner

Jimmmy, firstly, I would suggest you use the Search function on Boards to check the amount of posts and threads on this topic.

Secondly, if I were you, I would then do some research about the public service and sector, including maybe speaking to people in the service at all different levels (or even just reading threads here, which are full of personal accounts). I would also try my best to have an unbiased, mature outlook while conducting this research.

dvpower

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the public sector more or less dragged the country thorugh the 80s and early 90s with their taxes

WTF! Care to expand?

Godge

jimmmy wrote: »

Yes. If the private sector did not have to support such an expensive public sector here ( where do you think our high rate of vat, excise duty , vrt etc goes to ? ) then prices would undoubtably be lower. As I said, its well know our public sector wage rates are way out of line. Our public finances are unsustainable.

This is the type of ignorant rubbish that is too frequently spewed out on these forums. How many times does it have to be explained that our public sector is small by international standards.

OECD figures constantly show this up. although the latest figures are 2006 or 2007, they do show that Ireland's public sector expenditure as a percentage of GDP is well below others.

Ireland is at 34.2%.
Germany - 43.9%, France 52.4%, U.K. 44.6%, Spain 38.7%, Sweden 52.6%, all other Nordics above 50%. Japan is 36%, U.S., the home of capitalism is at 36.6%.

OK, before the gods of GDP v GNP come roaring out of the blocks, Ireland's GDP is estimated at 190.6 bn for 2007, and GNP at 161.2 bn. Adjusting the Irish percentage for this gives you 40.35%, still very low by international standards.

What is really scary is to look at 2009 figures. Assume a 10% decline in GNP figures since 2007. That gives a GNP figure of 145.08 bn euro. The latest tax revenue forecast is predicted at 34 bn which means tax revenue would be at 23.43% of GNP, (Mexican levels if you are still comparing internationally). If public expenditure is held at 55 bn euro, a good outcome, the public sector is at 37.9% of GNP, still on the low side of those international comparisons. Of course, if you use GDP, those percentages are even lower and we look like a pre-welfare state.

These are only back of the envelope calculations using published OECD statistics and Central statistics office/Department of Finance figures, easily googled. Please don't quote tabloids disguised as Sunday broadsheets in response though.

shamwari

I’d like to offer my opinions on this subject and I’d like to make it clear that I am in the public service (a semi state to be exact). In my case, my colleagues and I are employed on performance related contracts and all aspects of our performance are measured qualitatively and quantitively to determine our pay. In short, we have to perform to agreed levels and must reach prescribed targets to achieve pay increases. Our pay isn’t increased using increments like in the civil service, nor do we receive national wage agreements. If we fail to reach agreed targets then we simply don’t get a pay increase. If a person excels in their position then the rewards can be generous. Pay progression is controlled using a matrix which takes account of a several variables, including a person’s overall work performance and the organisations overall performance.

I believe that a similar performance related pay system is the way to go for the civil service. It means that proportioned and appropriate pay increases are paid to those who perform to a minimum level in their role, and will encourage all staff to apply themselves in a more diligent and conscientious way. I also believe that automatic pay increases (increments) and benchmarking are the very reasons why the public service is inefficient. It gives rise to a mindset that no matter how hard or otherwise someone works, they will still get a pay increase. Certainly benchmarking was supposedly predicated on productivity and work practice changes as quid pro quo for payment, yet anyone I know in the public service is adamant that they made no concessions in order to achieve benchmarking. The blame for making unconditional benchmarking payments must surely rest with government. By comparison in the organisation I work for, benchmarking was never paid at all, and instead any increases in pay collectively negotiated were directly linked to significant changes in work practices and productivity improvements. In my opinion, the whole culture of pay / performance / productivity in the public service has to change. This would be in the wider interests of the Irish public, the exchequer, and the public servants themselves.

I also have serious misgivings too with the whole pension’s issue with the way the government has handled it. The whole focus of the public servants ire has been the way in which pension payments were thrust upon them in an arbitrary way, and giving rise to all sorts of suspicions about public servants pensions being used to bail out the banks! However nobody (who I’ve seen) has made the point that in the current climate where pension schemes are in tatters, that surely it must be unwise to shovel cash into these schemes when they are all in a loss-making state. It’s tantamount to throwing ones cash down a hole! Surely would it not be better to wait until the schemes improve and then start contributing to them then?

And I’ll conclude with one or two final suggestions to help reduce staff numbers. It is my understanding that although civil servants must retire at 65, they can be required to retire from 60 onwards. I would “require” any civil servant who is >=60 years of age with their 40 years service under their belt to retire immediately. I would also implement an early retirement scheme for any civil servant who is >= 56 with 36 or more years to retire on a full pension. I would be surprised if the bean counters in Finance haven’t costed similar already...

ronbyrne2005

Godge wrote: »

This is the type of ignorant rubbish that is too frequently spewed out on these forums. How many times does it have to be explained that our public sector is small by international standards.

OECD figures constantly show this up. although the latest figures are 2006 or 2007, they do show that Ireland's public sector expenditure as a percentage of GDP is well below others.

Ireland is at 34.2%.
Germany - 43.9%, France 52.4%, U.K. 44.6%, Spain 38.7%, Sweden 52.6%, all other Nordics above 50%. Japan is 36%, U.S., the home of capitalism is at 36.6%.

OK, before the gods of GDP v GNP come roaring out of the blocks, Ireland's GDP is estimated at 190.6 bn for 2007, and GNP at 161.2 bn. Adjusting the Irish percentage for this gives you 40.35%, still very low by international standards.

What is really scary is to look at 2009 figures. Assume a 10% decline in GNP figures since 2007. That gives a GNP figure of 145.08 bn euro. The latest tax revenue forecast is predicted at 34 bn which means tax revenue would be at 23.43% of GNP, (Mexican levels if you are still comparing internationally). If public expenditure is held at 55 bn euro, a good outcome, the public sector is at 37.9% of GNP, still on the low side of those international comparisons. Of course, if you use GDP, those percentages are even lower and we look like a pre-welfare state.

These are only back of the envelope calculations using published OECD statistics and Central statistics office/Department of Finance figures, easily googled. Please don't quote tabloids disguised as Sunday broadsheets in response though.

Good that you acknowledged the real measure using GNP, but those figures are very misleading. They take no account of scope and comprehensiveness of public sector in any country. In other OECD countries they have large military expenditure, lower class sizes, free at source GP and dental care, low cost or free at source child care and endless other public services that we dont have in Ireland. Also the OECD reports dont measure and cant measure the quality of public services.
Also we have the highest public sector pay/pensions packages in OECD which means less of the public sector workers that are required can be recuited as the existing ones have to be paid so much more than rest OECD.
We also have lower taxes than all those countries you mention which means people have more after tax income and can decide themselves how to spend this income on services like GP etc which are provided as free public services in other countries. It's the same at end of day as you pay through your taxes for these public services or directly with after tax income if public sector doesnt provide it.

Gurgle

*Honey* wrote: »

Wrong. Where do people get these ideas from? I work in education admin and believe me, I have not gotten a nominal promotion ever in my life, I worked hard and sat in front of an 6 person interview board for 90 minutes sweating buckets to get any promotion I've gotten. I work hard and my team does too.

Of course you do, but what about the 6 person interview board?
What pay-scales are they on, and do they do anything other than make staff sweat ?

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/psempearn.pdf
Average pay in the public sector is €945 per week - equates to a salary of €50k. We know that front-line staff (teachers, nurses, gardai etc) are not earning an average of €50k.

Average industrial wage is €32k, its clear that the public sector is way out of line.

Its not executive level staff, theres only around 10,000 of them (link), which is pretty much in line with similar sized organizations in the private sector.

Something has to account for the discrepancy. Somewhere out there are a dis-proportionate number of people on higher salaries bringing the average up.

Enter middle management.

ronbyrne2005

Gurgle wrote: »

Of course you do, but what about the 6 person interview board?
What pay-scales are they on, and do they do anything other than make staff sweat ?

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/psempearn.pdf
Average pay in the public sector is €945 per week - equates to a salary of €50k. We know that front-line staff (teachers, nurses, gardai etc) are not earning an average of €50k.

Average industrial wage is €32k, its clear that the public sector is way out of line.

Its not executive level staff, theres only around 10,000 of them (link), which is pretty much in line with similar sized organizations in the private sector.

Something has to account for the discrepancy. Somewhere out there are a dis-proportionate number of people on higher salaries bringing the average up.

Enter middle management.

Actually our Gardai , nurses and teachers do get 50k+ on average. They are amongst the best paid in world.

P. Breathnach

Gurgle wrote: »

Of course you do, but what about the 6 person interview board?
What pay-scales are they on, and do they do anything other than make staff sweat ?

What's the point of these questions? Do you want promotions decided in some covert way, or by means of a transparent (and challenging) process? Of course many interviewers have management responsibilities. Deciding on promotions is a management function.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/psempearn.pdf
Average pay in the public sector is €945 per week - equates to a salary of €50k. We know that front-line staff (teachers, nurses, gardai etc) are not earning an average of €50k.

No, we don't know that. Let's not create a myth of the heroic and underpaid foot-soldiers and the exploitative officers at higher levels. That's not the way things are. People at entry-level grades in the public service are generally paid a reasonable amount, taking account of their qualifications and experience.

Average industrial wage is €32k, its clear that the public sector is way out of line.

The public sector is not at all like industry. The mix of responsibilities, duties, skills, and qualifications is quite different. Making that your criterion is like entering a cat in a dog show. Why not compare with, for example, average pay in the financial sector?

Its not executive level staff, theres only around 10,000 of them (link), which is pretty much in line with similar sized organizations in the private sector.

Something has to account for the discrepancy. Somewhere out there are a dis-proportionate number of people on higher salaries bringing the average up.

Enter middle management.

That's rhetoric. Try showing data.

You entirely neglect that many of those employed in the public service are qualified in professional or technical fields, and are paid accordingly. A couple of thousand medical consultants, for example, pulls the average up a bit.

joolsveer

Excerpt from Dáil debates

Dáil Éireann - Volume 644 - 18 December, 2007

Written Answers. - Average Industrial Wage.

Deputy Leo Varadkar Deputy Leo Varadkar

726

Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the [726] Taoiseach the way the average industrial wage is calculated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34695/07]

Deputy Tom Kitt Deputy Tom Kitt

Deputy Tom Kitt: The average industrial wage is generally defined as the hourly or weekly wage rate of industrial workers in the industrial sector. Until June 2007, this data was collected in the Quarterly Industrial Inquiry (QII), in respect of industrial enterprises with 10 or more employees. In the QII, the average industrial wage was recorded on the following basis:

The industrial sector included manufacturing industries; mining and quarrying; and the electricity, gas and water supply sector.

Industrial workers were defined as operatives, maintenance workers, storekeepers, packers, cleaners, basic supervisory staff and apprentices. Managerial, professional, technical and clerical staff were not included in the calculation of the average industrial wage.

Wages included the gross amount paid to employees before tax and PRSI. They included regular bonuses, overtime, service pay, shift pay and allowances, commissions, and regular bonuses. They excluded irregular pay, back-pay and redundancy payments.

The Earnings, Hours and Employment Costs Survey (EHECS) provides more detailed information, from 2006 onwards, on earnings, labour costs and hours worked in the industrial and financial sectors. During 2008, this new survey will be extended to other sectors. The results of the EHECS survey are contained in the quarterly Earnings and Labour Costs release, which was first published by the CSO in August 2007.

The EHECS survey involves some differences in scope from the surveys which it is replacing. For example, industrial enterprises with three or more employees are now being surveyed, whereas the QII covered workplaces with 10 or more employees. The EHECS survey also collects information for the entire quarter rather than for a single reference week in the quarter. The CSO has included broadly comparable tables of earnings and hours worked, from the old and new surveys, in the annex to the Earnings and Labour Costs quarterly release.

Dáil Éireann 644 Written Answers. Average Industrial Wage.

Questions

It is interesting that "Managerial, professional, technical and clerical staff were not included in the calculation of the average industrial wage.". To my mind this makes it difficult to compare this figure with the Civil Service where all these categories are included.

ParkRunner

Interesting that alright, junior managers in the civil service therefore are only earning the equivalent average wage of "operatives, maintenance workers, storekeepers, packers, cleaners, basic supervisory staff and apprentices"

ixoy

EF wrote: »

Interesting that alright, junior managers in the civil service therefore are only earning the equivalent average wage of "operatives, maintenance workers, storekeepers, packers, cleaners, basic supervisory staff and apprentices"

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

thomasj

ixoy wrote: »

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

i would consider an eo a manager because of their responsibility of lower staff cs well as other managemental duties.

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

EO's would be classed junior management in terms of their role profile. I have staff working to me that I have to manage, but an EO's role and responsibilities will not be the same in every situation.

ronbyrne2005

ixoy wrote: »

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

Also , the real value of the PS compensation package is much larger due to heavily subsidised gold plated pension, less unpaid overtime,mileage, more flexible work arrangements etc etc.

ParkRunner

On another note, one of the reasons so many civil service jobs had to be created in recent years was because of the escalation in litigation taken against the State, especially since PIAB was created and even more especially with the disappearance of conveyancing. Someone has to defend and administer these cases.

Kimbot

Ste.phen wrote: »

I know this has probably been done to death somewhere else but can someone explain the concept of 'increments' to me? It sounded like automatic pay raises given for length of service, without any appraisal or increase in responsibility. Does that sound right?
I fully understand the 'grade' system (though think it's archaic) where the pay raises come with extra work and responsibility, but the increments seem suspiciously like getting paid more for just hanging around.
Surely that doesn't help with the 'deadwood' problem mentioned before?

(and i've head a PS worker before say that because moving up a grade isn't always possible for (essentially) internal political reasons, that they need the increments to have any sense of progression - but surely the problem there is that 'internal politics' are allowed justify progression?)

Each year you fill out what is call an RPF (Role Profile Form) with your manager, you agree your job role and what you will get done in the next 12 months. During the year you have an interm review to see if you are meeting your objectives. Then at the end of the year you are rated by your manager to see how you done.

If you met the criteria then you will receive you increment (My last one was €800 increase in my salary for the year), if you don't meet the criteria then you don't get it.

ixoy wrote: »

How do you get that? I'd call a junior manager, someone HEO or above and they're certainly not on 32k - it starts off at mid-40s (or is it even 50?). An EO would start just above the averge industrial salary too I believe and they're not managers (certainly not where I am).

HEO starts around the 46k mark.
EO starts at around 30k.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/circulars2008/paysept2008.pdf

new=user

Hi I am over 30 and have just worked in public sector for last few years. Prior to that i worked in IT. My salary was way higher in private sector and had lots of perks. I joined civil service as a clerical officer. I only joined as there were no jobs down country in IT. I had the same perception before joining that civil servants had a very easy life. This is not the case for all. The first department i worked for was very busy and i worked very hard for my appalling low wages. I then eventually got a transfer to a department closer to my home. This particular dept wasn't that busy and could def have done with less staff.

I then managed to get promoted (by doing multiple exams and interviews and finally managing to pass one). My salary at a supervisory level is still far lower than what it was in private sector.

Reason for all this background information was so you understand where i coming from. I am horrified at some of the unreasonable comments in this thread. Yes a small minority of civil servants dont work as hard as they should and i agree that automatic increments were wrong. But this has actually changed. In the dept i am in now you have to get a certain rating on your review or you do not get your increment.

As i said i only joined a few years ago and if i work till i am 70 i still wont have full service so no gold-plated penision for me. Also where did the notion of this gold plated pension come from. Any tiny pension i get will have the social welfare pension deducted from it and will be pro-rated. The extra money being taken from me in this levy will not give me extra money in my pension.

My job is not permanent. I am actually on probation for my promotion and genuinely fear for my job if i dont perform well enough. The phones are constantly ringing off the hook in my section and we dont have half enough staff. I often go in before 8 (which i dont get the time for) to try and get started on my work.

Some changes are necessary in public service but what private company doesn't need changes? Dont tar everyone with same brush and dont assume all civil servants have life of reilly!! Btw how many people posting on here or reading posts have internet access at work? There is none in my department...........

Godge

Gurgle wrote: »

Average pay in the public sector is €945 per week - equates to a salary of €50k. We know that front-line staff (teachers, nurses, gardai etc) are not earning an average of €50k.

Average industrial wage is €32k, its clear that the public sector is way out of line.

Its not executive level staff, theres only around 10,000 of them (link), which is pretty much in line with similar sized organizations in the private sector.

Something has to account for the discrepancy. Somewhere out there are a dis-proportionate number of people on higher salaries bringing the average up.

Enter middle management.

More rubbish.

Teachers with an honours degree start on the third point of the common basic scale - €34,907. The honours degree gets them €5,177 and they get at least a supevision allowance of €1,800 giving a new teacher a salary of €42,000. there are a heap of other allowances - check a teachers union website. After five years a teacher is on at least 50,000 and still has 17 increments to get to the top of the scale by which time an ordinary teacher (not a class head or deputy principal or anything) will be earning around 70k.

Nurses and gardai payscales are similarly misleading. They receive shift payments of between one-sixth and one-quarter. They have plenty of other allowances as well and engrained overtime.

I have no doubt that if you measured the average actual salary received by nurses, guards and teachers, you get an average of more than €50,000.

With the civil service scales, what you see is what they get.

Godge

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Good that you acknowledged the real measure using GNP, but those figures are very misleading. They take no account of scope and comprehensiveness of public sector in any country. In other OECD countries they have large military expenditure, lower class sizes, free at source GP and dental care, low cost or free at source child care and endless other public services that we dont have in Ireland. Also the OECD reports dont measure and cant measure the quality of public services.
Also we have the highest public sector pay/pensions packages in OECD which means less of the public sector workers that are required can be recuited as the existing ones have to be paid so much more than rest OECD.
We also have lower taxes than all those countries you mention which means people have more after tax income and can decide themselves how to spend this income on services like GP etc which are provided as free public services in other countries. It's the same at end of day as you pay through your taxes for these public services or directly with after tax income if public sector doesnt provide it.

Where is the statistic that says we have the highest public sector pay/pensions packages in OECD?

Of course, if we spend less of our GNP or GDP on the public sector, of course we have a less comprehensive public sector.

My main point is that at the macro level, we have a small public sector by international standards and just wielding an axe to public spending won't solve anything. We have huge problems at micro levels, our health service and education sectors have inefficient overpaid front-line delivery with the health service also having a hugely inefficient bureaucracy. A plethora of unnecessary state organisations with duplicated back-office services is a problem but is not of the same size. Our civil service is extremely small by international standards. Its main weakness is an inability to shift resources where they are needed. For example, if D/Agrculture clerical staff are no longer processing farm waste management grants, why can't they be moved immediately to Social Welfare to process unemployment payments.

Addressing these micro issues will involve taking on the large powerful public sector trade unions (the nurses, the guards, the teachers, the CPSU) and I don't think the Govt. has the bottle for that.

johnnyrotten

jimmmy wrote: »

It was in one of the Sunday broadsheets a week or two ago. Its well know our public sector wage rates are way out of line. At the bottom, the dole in this country is more than the minimum wage in the UK. At the top, our Taoiseach is paid more than the President of USA, Germany, France or thep.m. of the UK...all much much bigger, industrialised nations. Get real. Our public finances are unsustainable.

Wages in Irish Private Sector are way out of line too!

ixoy

EF wrote: »

EO's would be classed junior management in terms of their role profile. I have staff working to me that I have to manage, but an EO's role and responsibilities will not be the same in every situation.

Fair enough - none of the EOs I work appear to have any management duty so I guess it varies from department (I know of HEOs with only 1-2 people working for them). Friend of mine is an EO and he has nobody he has to surprive either.

I would consider my own role roughly equivalent to an EO in the CS - I have supervisory input into other people, I help manage their workload, but I don't see it as junior management.

Looking at that, I see after the first year there's a 7% pay increase (which would be even more if there were adjustments for inflation) with a bit of a drop after that (5% + whatever else was agreed due to inflation). To me it looks like the wages start reasonably low (relatively) but they increase quite decently after a few years - johnny24ie you mention you have to justify the increase, but in reality who doesn't get the annual increments? Given it's based on PMDS and hardly anyone gets a 1, surely these are almost guaranteed?

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

Fair enough - none of the EOs I work appear to have any management duty so I guess it varies from department (I know of HEOs with only 1-2 people working for them). Friend of mine is an EO and he has nobody he has to surprive either.

I would consider my own role roughly equivalent to an EO in the CS - I have supervisory input into other people, I help manage their workload, but I don't see it as junior management.

Looking at that, I see after the first year there's a 7% pay increase (which would be even more if there were adjustments for inflation) with a bit of a drop after that (5% + whatever else was agreed due to inflation). To me it looks like the wages start reasonably low (relatively) but they increase quite decently after a few years - johnny24ie you mention you have to justify the increase, but in reality who doesn't get the annual increments? Given it's based on PMDS and hardly anyone gets a 1, surely these are almost guaranteed?

Is it such a bad thing to expect some bit of a payrise after putting in a years work? If you are a half decent employee you will have added value to your employer whether in the public sector or the private sector through increased experience and knowledge

ixoy

EF wrote: »

Is it such a bad thing to expect some bit of a payrise after putting in a years work? If you are a half decent employee you will have added value to your employer whether in the public sector or the private sector through increased experience and knowledge

Except firstly you mighn't have added any value because, as discussed in other threads, there's little merit basis to it. It's sound enough in theory, but it needs reform as well (as indeed many public servants themselves have agreed on other threads).

More to the point, we can't afford it either - it's interesting to note that, for those who just joined the levy cut would be somewhat offset by their automatic pay rise. It wouldn't bring it back up, true, but it does mean it's harder to swallow the idea they're on a "pay freeze". We should be looking at freezing these increments too, for now as they're just unpalatable.

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

It wouldn't bring it back up, true, but it does mean it's harder to swallow the idea they're on a "pay freeze". We should be looking at freezing these increments too, for now as they're just unpalatable.

My role was created to defend against (usually baseless) litigation from private sector law firms taking cases against the State. When they stop my role will become redundant. Until then I have no choice

Gurgle

Godge wrote: »

More rubbish.

Teachers with an honours degree start on the third point of the common basic scale - €34,907. The honours degree gets them €5,177 and they get at least a supevision allowance of €1,800 giving a new teacher a salary of €42,000...

When rubbishing someone else's claims and throwing your own figures around, its traditional to link to some sources.

jimmmy

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Good that you acknowledged the real measure using GNP, but those figures are very misleading. They take no account of scope and comprehensiveness of public sector in any country. In other OECD countries they have large military expenditure, lower class sizes, free at source GP and dental care, low cost or free at source child care and endless other public services that we dont have in Ireland. Also the OECD reports dont measure and cant measure the quality of public services.
Also we have the highest public sector pay/pensions packages in OECD which means less of the public sector workers that are required can be recuited as the existing ones have to be paid so much more than rest OECD.

Also public sector expenditure as a percentage of GNP is misleading in Ireland because our figures are skewed by multinationals paying their overseas profits through Ireland to avail of our low corporation tax. eg we are looked on a a tax have by some multinationals abroad who are known to pass billions through offices employing a few people.

Our public sector needs job cuts and pay cuts , fast.

P. Breathnach

Gurgle wrote: »

When rubbishing someone else's claims and throwing your own figures around, its traditional to link to some sources.

That's a bit rich coming from somebody who made an unsupported and inaccurate claim! I am sure that you remember saying

Average pay in the public sector is €945 per week - equates to a salary of €50k. We know that front-line staff (teachers, nurses, gardai etc) are not earning an average of €50.

Try this: http://www.tui.ie/Salary_Scales/Default.286.html

nhughes100

jimmmy wrote: »

Also public sector expenditure as a percentage of GNP is misleading in Ireland because our figures are skewed by multinationals paying their overseas profits through Ireland to avail of our low corporation tax. eg we are looked on a a tax have by some multinationals abroad who are known to pass billions through offices employing a few people.

Our public sector needs job cuts and pay cuts , fast.

Jimmmy, in short lets have some put up or shut up, your posts are Eddie Hobbs populist rhetoric. Lets have some figures on how you would cut all the "dead wood" and all the inefficiences in the gold plated public service without impacting frontline services. Lets aim for 10 billion euro. That'll get us some of the way there. Give us numbers in departments and give us grades and payscales that you would cull. Don't forget you'll have to pay redundancy and pay them dole as well as other social and medical benefits. Not to mention the reduced tax take next year.


All you bashers are the same people that start moaning when your bins aren't collected, when it takes 6 months to get a tax disc for a car, when your kids are crammed into classrooms, when someones stuck on a trolley in a+e, when there's no college spaces and the points hit the roof etc etc etc.

ParkRunner

Copied straight from my payslip. The only earnings I get are my salary. No bonuses and no overtime. There are now 4 pension related deductions as well as the Income levy, PAYE and PRSI and deductions are only going to rise!


Gross Earnings
Description
Salary

---

Deductions
Description

Income Levy
Paye
Prsi-Ee
Survivorspension Post
Lump Sum Pension Post
Personal Pension Post
Pension Related Deduc

ixoy

I'm not quite sure what your point is EF? I could show my payslip and it wouldn't have any overtime mentioned either - I'm on time in lieu as would be a civil servant. It's also a bit irrelevant without some figures put in which you're - obviously - not going to provide (nor would I).

Can I ask how long your hours are per week? I was thinking that if they upped the standard hours from 35 to 37.5 (which would be more private sector standard from my experience), they would effectively get a couple more hundred civil servants a year without having to recruit anyone.

ParkRunner

ixoy wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what your point is EF? I could show my payslip and it wouldn't have any overtime mentioned either - I'm on time in lieu as would be a civil servant. It's also a bit irrelevant without some figures put in which you're - obviously - not going to provide (nor would I).

Can I ask how long your hours are per week? I was thinking that if they upped the standard hours from 35 to 37.5 (which would be more private sector standard from my experience), they would effectively get a couple more hundred civil servants a year without having to recruit anyone.

The basic point was that I am contributing to my pension, quite significantly now and that all deductions are mandatory.

Im on the standard 6.57 hours per day and I wouldn't have a problem with those hours going up. There aren't enough hours in the day for my workload.