2007-public-private pay gap was 48%!

gurramok

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0710/cso.html

Report here http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2007/nes_2007.pdf

Crazy stuff. Despite their huge unaffordable pay, i wondered the following..

Why on earth would those 53% with 3rd level qualifications in the public sector stay there?

Why is that figure so high compared to 32% in the private sector?

Where is the innovation from them?

Is it the bad pay in the private sector, what is the reason?

Small Change

gurramok wrote: »

Why is that figure so high compared to 32% in the private sector?

I expect that this is due to the private sector figures including high levels of people working in low-paid jobs in the service industry which typically would not require 3rd level qualifications

Riskymove

gurramok wrote: »

Why on earth would those 53% with 3rd level qualifications in the public sector stay there?

Why is that figure so high compared to 32% in the private sector?

"Average, average, average" again

it brings very little to any debate


In relation to 3rd level quals, I'd say its a mix of (a) needing quals to progress (b) a lot of these quals are related to public service (c) there are a lot of quals out there which do not automatically get you private sector jobs (insert Arts degree joke here) and (d) as mentioned, a lot of private sector don't require quals

also Public sector = 300,000 or so

private sector 1.5m or so so proportions always going to be different

irish_bob

we are one of the few countrys where public sector pay is higher than private but then again most countries are not run by fianna ( heres another pay rise for your vote mr garda , mrs nurse and mr teacher ) fail

BroomBurner

There are many jobs in the public sector that require third level eduction, including teaching, nursing, doctors, admin grades at EO and AO grades and diplomatic staff.

Where is the innovation from them? How do you know that there isn't innovation from them? Maybe there is, but because it is small and localised, noone sees it. For example, there are a great many teachers who excel at their jobs and put loads of extra time in and use innovative teaching methods. Another example might be someone educating themselves so that their department can provide a service that would otherwise be out-sourced privately. How can anyone possibly say that that doesn't happen?

If anyone here has ever worked for a private sector company that is large in size knows that even the smallest of changes takes time. When there is a change, not everyone sees it either, it's not like people shout to the rafters just because they've done something worthwhile. We're not all glory hunters out there.

I am in no way excusing inefficiency, or poor staff. However, the usual anti-public sector sentiment on these boards continues to stink of the same "yous are all money-wasting b*****ds that deserve a pay-cut". As far as I can tell, there has only been one or two private sector workers on here that don't follow the above line. It would make for a far more interesting debate if there were more and we wouldn't have to waste our time dealing with the likes of Irish Bob and Jimmmy, coming out with the same claptrap as usual.

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

"Average, average, average" again

it brings very little to any debate

Yeh.

Think in figure 9 of the report shows the total median annual earnings to be 32k which looks quite fair, agree?

Whats the median annual pay for a public sector worker? (Can't seem to find it)

irish_bob

BroomBurner wrote: »

There are many jobs in the public sector that require third level eduction, including teaching, nursing, doctors, admin grades at EO and AO grades and diplomatic staff.

Where is the innovation from them? How do you know that there isn't innovation from them? Maybe there is, but because it is small and localised, noone sees it. For example, there are a great many teachers who excel at their jobs and put loads of extra time in and use innovative teaching methods. Another example might be someone educating themselves so that their department can provide a service that would otherwise be out-sourced privately. How can anyone possibly say that that doesn't happen?

If anyone here has ever worked for a private sector company that is large in size knows that even the smallest of changes takes time. When there is a change, not everyone sees it either, it's not like people shout to the rafters just because they've done something worthwhile. We're not all glory hunters out there.

I am in no way excusing inefficiency, or poor staff. However, the usual anti-public sector sentiment on these boards continues to stink of the same "yous are all money-wasting b*****ds that deserve a pay-cut". As far as I can tell, there has only been one or two private sector workers on here that don't follow the above line. It would make for a far more interesting debate if there were more and we wouldn't have to waste our time dealing with the likes of Irish Bob and Jimmmy, coming out with the same claptrap as usual.

the only thing thats relevant right now is that the country cannot afford the public sector wage bill due to the fact that public sector wages were only made affordable by our property boom , wages will be cut and numbers reduced beit by the irish goverment or outside forces , the choice is ours

ParkRunner

There was a marked difference in the structure of employment in the two sectors. 11.6% of employees in the private sector were Managers compared with 3.0% in the public sector. Almost half of all public sector workers (46.4%) consisted of Professional or Associate professional and technical occupations, compared with about one in seven workers (13.9%) in the private sector. Nearly a quarter (24.5%) of private sector employees consisted of Sales and Other occupations (mainly manual labour) which were the occupations with the lowest mean and median hourly earnings.

It is interesting to read in the report that despite the claims that the public service is overstaffed by managers, only 3% of employees in the public sector are managers.
Also the difference in pay may be explained by the fact that nearly half of public sector workers are professional or technical staff compared with a mere 14% in the private sector. We are not comparing like with like here at all!

eamonnm79

irish_bob wrote: »

we are one of the few countrys where public sector pay is higher than private but then again most countries are not run by fianna ( heres another pay rise for your vote mr garda , mrs nurse and mr teacher ) fail

Do you have stats on public v private sector pay in other countries? genuinely interested.

Senna

EF wrote: »

It is interesting to read in the report that despite the claims that the public service is overstaffed by managers, only 3% of employees in the public sector are managers.

A large amount of private sector jobs are in small companies, imagine a cafe, 4 staff and 1 manager. What grade is classed as management in the private sector? would an staff/executive officer be classed as a manager in the civil service?

ParkRunner

Senna wrote: »

A large amount of private sector jobs are in small companies, imagine a cafe, 4 staff and 1 manager. What grade is classed as management in the private sector? would an staff/executive officer be classed as a manager in the civil service?

Personally I would class an EO as a manager. Many EO's have responsibility for staff and have a certain amount of decision making power. Public jobs themselves say that an EO's role profile is:

The Executive Officer position is the first level of management in the department and your role will involve project management and stsff management.

The only other classification they might fit in is clerical workers but I dont know what category the CSO decided to use.

irish_bob

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Do you have stats on public v private sector pay in other countries? genuinely interested.

im not good at digging up statistics but im sure you can find them if you look , ive relatives in the uk and ive freinds from other parts of the EU , private sector pay is higher on average than public sector pay in the uk and most other EU countries , if you dont believe me , fine

eoinbn

irish_bob wrote: »

im not good at digging up statistics but im sure you can find them if you look , ive relatives in the uk and ive freinds from other parts of the EU , private sector pay is higher on average than public sector pay in the uk and most other EU countries , if you dont believe me , fine

Your wrong. Public sector pay is usually higher but the gap usually isn't anywhere near 50%.

irish_bob

eoinbn wrote: »

Your wrong. Public sector pay is usually higher but the gap usually isn't anywhere near 50%.

i assure you i am right on this one

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

i assure you i am right on this one

And I assure you that you are wrong.

Since you cannot adduce evidence in support of the suggestion that the pay differential is about 50%, where does that get us?

johnnyskeleton

Riskymove wrote: »

"Average, average, average" again

it brings very little to any debate

What will an 18 year old school leaver earn in their first year in the civil service? €22-25k doing a clerical job? What will they get in the private sector? Minimum wage of €17k? The starting salary for clerical workers in a bank (usually €18-19k)?

How much will a middle manager in a bank earn? 35-45k maybe. How much will they earn in the HSE? Who knows?

How much will a private security worker earn v. a garda, soldier or prison officer?

If you want to dispute the point of the article, point to some specific examples of public sector earners earning the same or less than their private sector equivalents. Then add in pensions and perks, longer holidays, career breaks, 6 months paid sick leave, job security and the fact that, while many public servants work just as hard as private sector workers, they don't have to work that hard to keep their job and can slack off if they like. Adding all those things together doesn't prove that the averages do or do not reflect reality, but it helps colour in the picture.

silverharp

amusing anicdote, We were costing a job for Fas recently (they are the bane of my life but hay any port in a storm) , they queried why the salary cost was going to be around 35K , according to their grades the person should have been on over 50K and they actually didnt seem happy about it. They then went on to bitch that we had included a telephone cost of 2K per year, and why cant they use Skype. :rolleyes:&*&$£$%%%

ChowChow

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What will an 18 year old school leaver earn in their first year in the civil service? €22-25k doing a clerical job? What will they get in the private sector? Minimum wage of €17k? The starting salary for clerical workers in a bank (usually €18-19k)?

Gross pay comparisons do not tell the whole story given that there is now an 'exclusive' tax to work in the public service.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How much will a middle manager in a bank earn? 35-45k maybe. How much will they earn in the HSE? Who knows?

I'm sure the HSE payscales are published somewhere if you google it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How much will a private security worker earn v. a garda, soldier or prison officer?

Not exactly a fair comparison, e.g. a security officer doing night shifts on a building site vs a garda dealing with god knows what.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you want to dispute the point of the article, point to some specific examples of public sector earners earning the same or less than their private sector equivalents.

This is quite difficult to do when there is little transparency in the private sector when it comes to salaries/perks/bonuses. For example, look at the professional jobs advertised in the press, many will not give the salary but the usual claptrap of send us your current renumeration package. Another example set by the great Turlough O'Sullivan of IBEC - 'I took a 6% paycut' so public sector workers should follow suit. He neglected to mention 6% of what exactly?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Then add in pensions and perks, longer holidays, career breaks, 6 months paid sick leave, job security and the fact that, while many public servants work just as hard as private sector workers, they don't have to work that hard to keep their job and can slack off if they like. Adding all those things together doesn't prove that the averages reflect reality, but it helps colour in the picture.

Lets also add in a mix of private sector perks such as corporate days out, bonuses, free health care, relocation allowances, petrol allowances, various freebies (phone, mobile internet, laptop) to balance things out a little.
Having worked in both sectors I can promise you that 'slacking off' is in fact a well-known human condition that does not discern between public and private sectors.

ParkRunner

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What will an 18 year old school leaver earn in their first year in the civil service? €22-25k doing a clerical job? What will they get in the private sector? Minimum wage of €17k? The starting salary for clerical workers in a bank (usually €18-19k)?

How much will a middle manager in a bank earn? 35-45k maybe. How much will they earn in the HSE? Who knows?

How much will a private security worker earn v. a garda, soldier or prison officer?

If you want to dispute the point of the article, point to some specific examples of public sector earners earning the same or less than their private sector equivalents. Then add in pensions and perks, longer holidays, career breaks, 6 months paid sick leave, job security and the fact that, while many public servants work just as hard as private sector workers, they don't have to work that hard to keep their job and can slack off if they like. Adding all those things together doesn't prove that the averages do or do not reflect reality, but it helps colour in the picture.

Another possible explanation in the disparity of pay may be down to the fact that a significantly higher percentage of public sector workers are third level graduates compared to the private sector. Is it not reasonable to expect that an entry level college graduate would be paid higher than those entering the workforce with just second level qualifications

A profile of educational qualifications in the public and private sectors shows that over half (52.8%) of all public sector employees had third-level qualifications, compared with 31.9% in the private sector. Nearly 40% of public sector employees had a third level degree or higher qualification compared to 19.9% in the private sector. Around a quarter (24.5%) of private sector employees had a primary or lower secondary qualification while in the public sector 17.9% of employees hadthis qualification.

cyclopath2001

ChowChow wrote: »

This is quite difficult to do when there is little transparency in the private sector when it comes to salaries/perks/bonuses.

A relation of mine works in Revenue IT, they have Accenture on site. The company supplies their staff with baskets of fruit, snacks etc (via Tesco). Then there's the golf-outings & social 'team building exercises'....all of which probably gets charged back to the taxpayer in their services invoice.

irish_bob

EF wrote: »

Another possible explanation in the disparity of pay may be down to the fact that a significantly higher percentage of public sector workers are third level graduates compared to the private sector. Is it not reasonable to expect that an entry level college graduate would be paid higher than those entering the workforce with just second level qualifications

you keep banging on about more public sector workers having 3rd level education , a persons level of education is not the main barometer in how they are paid , its what level of service they provide , the level of skill involved in being a clerical officer in a state dept involved being able to answer a phone , use a photo copier and sticking letters in the post box , that along with being able to tell members of the public that jimmy or jane isnt in today

ParkRunner

irish_bob wrote: »

you keep banging on about more public sector workers having 3rd level education , a persons level of education is not the main barometer in how they are paid , its what level of service they provide , the level of skill involved in being a clerical officer in a state dept involved being able to answer a phone , use a photo copier and sticking letters in the post box , that along with being able to tell members of the public that jimmy or jane isnt in today

Those are just the basic services really that a clerical officer provides. When I was a CO I worked in positions as diverse as finance, market research, and legal work. A CO who just photocopies and deals with post won't get very far but those who excel themselves get the rewards. The recruitment process is also pretty competitive and publicjobs could pick and choose some of the best young educated people around given the interest in the jobs and it is reflected in the CSO stats that there is a much higher proportion of 3rd level grads in the public sector than in the private sector.

Dr Galen

irish_bob wrote: »

im not good at digging up statistics but im sure you can find them if you look , ive relatives in the uk and ive freinds from other parts of the EU , private sector pay is higher on average than public sector pay in the uk and most other EU countries , if you dont believe me , fine

i'm sorry but thats not good enough.

the "my cousin's aunties friends sister" answer might work in some places, but when someone like yourself is so vehemently opposed to all things public sector and uses every excuse to bash said sector, a few facts and figures are most definitely called for.

i don't doubt that there is wastage and over spend in the public services, but the constant troting out of average figures does nothing to add to the case your trying to make. The median wages in both sectors for similar jobs would be a much better barometer, but are seldom used by those from the public bashing side

johnnyskeleton

ChowChow wrote: »

Gross pay comparisons do not tell the whole story given that there is now an 'exclusive' tax to work in the public service.

Factor it in then. Although, paying a contribution to pension has been part of private sector employment for a long time, so this "'exclusive' tax" is not really exclusive to the public sector.

ChowChow wrote: »

I'm sure the HSE payscales are published somewhere if you google it.

They are, but my point is that if averages are misleading, then why not do a like for like comparison?

ChowChow wrote: »

Not exactly a fair comparison, e.g. a security officer doing night shifts on a building site vs a garda dealing with god knows what.

As close a comparison as you can get between certain public and private jobs. In any event, you've taken a very minimalist view of the security industry - why not compare a private sector anti-fraud officer for a large corporation in comparison to a D/gda from Harcourt Terrace? Or a private head of security for the garda commissioner?

ChowChow wrote: »

This is quite difficult to do when there is little transparency in the private sector when it comes to salaries/perks/bonuses. For example, look at the professional jobs advertised in the press, many will not give the salary but the usual claptrap of send us your current renumeration package. Another example set by the great Turlough O'Sullivan of IBEC - 'I took a 6% paycut' so public sector workers should follow suit. He neglected to mention 6% of what exactly?

Why is it that public sector employees always compare themselves with high end developers, CEOs, tribunal barristers, top end accountants and high profile figures but never compare themselves with people on the minimum wage or people working similar jobs in the private sector? It's all very well to say that the head of the central bank earns less than the chairman of AIB, but it's another thing to try to use this to justify paying above market rates for jobs that are not so unique. Coming back to the HSE payscale, I note that the lowest wage that the HSE pays to catering staff (other than a trainee chef) is €26k. In the private catering sector, margins are so tight that to be earning €26k you'd have to be very good or very senior.

ChowChow wrote: »

Lets also add in a mix of private sector perks such as corporate days out, bonuses, free health care, relocation allowances, petrol allowances, various freebies (phone, mobile internet, laptop) to balance things out a little.
Having worked in both sectors I can promise you that 'slacking off' is in fact a well-known human condition that does not discern between public and private sectors.

Yes, let's add them all in, but you'll find that for the most part, the perks of the private sector pale in comparison to the public sector. It's just that in the public sector they call "corporate days out" junkets or training days and relocation allowances are decentralistion grants.

While there is slacking off in both the public and private sectors, it is tolerated far less in the public sector in two ways - firstly, in the private sector lazy unproductive workers are often fired and secondly in the private sector promotions are based more on merit than seniority of service.

johnnyskeleton

EF wrote: »

Another possible explanation in the disparity of pay may be down to the fact that a significantly higher percentage of public sector workers are third level graduates compared to the private sector. Is it not reasonable to expect that an entry level college graduate would be paid higher than those entering the workforce with just second level qualifications

Yes it is possible, which is why I said that if you want to look behind the statistics you should point to specific examples of public sector employees and their private sector equivalents.

I don't necessarily think that those with third level qualifications should be paid higher than those with second level qualifications because it depends on what those qualifications are in and in any event it is common experience in the private sector for college graduates to be paid less (initially anyway) than those who started working straight after school.

dresden8

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

relocation allowances are decentralistion grants.

.

There are no decentralisation grants. Your knowledge is sadly lacking and full of untrue generalities.

But carry on, you're playing a blinder.

ixoy

EF wrote: »

Personally I would class an EO as a manager. Many EO's have responsibility for staff and have a certain amount of decision making power.

Not in my experience - I admit it varies from department to department but I don't know of any EO that I work with that I'd call a manager. They're able to work independently sure, and have an area of responsibility, but that does not a manager make. By the same logic, I'd be a manager but there's no way, in a private sector sense, I'd remotely be classified as a manager (or even a team lead as of yet).
Maybe it's different in other departments.

A lot of the talk above goes on about bonuses and other corporate perks - has there ever been any figures for this? Many people I know in the private sector don't get this and those that do are often merit-based. Free health care is nearly always there but it's only about 600e on topic of the basic package so it doesn't make a massive difference.

It is interesting though to see the figures broken down with respect to hours worked in a week. I'd prefer to see more relevant figures though - the only one I feel comfortable with doing a like-for-like is myself and I'm not going to post those details here!

johnnyskeleton

dresden8 wrote: »

Your knowledge is sadly lacking and full of untrue generalities.

No more so than the posts re: the private sector.

dresden8 wrote: »

There are no decentralisation grants.

Oh I see, we have empty offices across the country and no one moving into them because the government refuse to pay these expenses. That's better.

leeroybrown

gurramok wrote: »

Is it the bad pay in the private sector, what is the reason?

It's misuse of statistics. Unfortunately, as usual the media have decided to take a long in-depth report and report the headline statistic that's got the most shock-and-awe factor about it. It's similar to the way that they used to cart out the 'average industrial wage' statistic to represent average pay when it just represented average pay of certain workers in one very specific major sector. I'd suggest that this misuse was one of the main reasons why the CSO finally got rid of the statistic last year.

gurramok wrote: »

Why is that figure so high compared to 32% in the private sector?

If you take a lot of construction, factory floor, shop floor, catering and trade workers out of the private sector numbers the difference would be a lot less. Conversely, the public sector includes almost all of the large health and education sectors where there will be an overwhelming tendency towards third level qualification. I'd still expect to see gap though as there are probably a lot of clerical workers in the public sector who ended up there after completing a degree that they've never directly made use of.

EF wrote: »

It is interesting to read in the report that despite the claims that the public service is overstaffed by managers, only 3% of employees in the public sector are managers.

I'd suggest that it's (largely correct) reporting regarding the top-heavy nature of the HSE that generates that opinion.

eoinbn wrote: »

Your wrong. Public sector pay is usually higher but the gap usually isn't anywhere near 50%.

irish_bob wrote: »

i assure you i am right on this one

In the absence of more in-depth reasoning in your posts I'd suggest that you're both wrong.

ChowChow wrote: »

Gross pay comparisons do not tell the whole story given that there is now an 'exclusive' tax to work in the public service.

That's largely irrelevant given that the figures in question date from 2007. Even if you begin to discuss the present it can be offset by the fact that average private sector wages have been taking a sizeable hit too.


I'm in the middle ground on this one. The public sector has a extremely well paid high-end and a well paid low-end. In the middle are a lot of people who do a very good job, some who represent poor value for money and quite a few who are underpaid by virtue of being stuck in a 'mediocracy' where they can't be rewarded the same way they would be in private industry.

What I find particularly funny is that I know that there are loads of skilled people who wouldn't have touched the public service during the good times as they could make much more money in the private sector. Conversely, there were those who decided that their long term financial stability was more important and opted to live with the pay cut while people they knew told them that they were mad. TBH, I've got a lot of sympathy for the guy who chose that secure job and can wave two fingers at his opposite number who's now screaming for him to take a big pay cut.

NewDubliner

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Oh I see, we have empty offices across the country and no one moving into them because the government refuse to pay these expenses. That's better.

That's simply not correct. The reason why the offices are empty is because the government failed to correctly assess the availability of Dublin people who wanted to move to the locations selected.

The 'decentralisation' plan itself was completely unnecessary and a good example of how political interference in the running of the PS has decreased efficiency and increased costs. Thousands of trained staff were moved to unsuitable jobs in order to accommodate the plan. Before the end of the boom, the government was hiring extra people to fill these offices as a way of rewarding its supporters. The principal cheerleader for scheme jumped ship before the end of the boom and is now working for the CIF where he had close contacts.

dresden8

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Oh I see, we have empty offices across the country and no one moving into them because the government refuse to pay these expenses. That's better.

You might want to stop talking about decentralisation now, you're exposing more of your ignorance on the matter.