Statistics and Public v Private wages

sfakiaman

Much is being bandied around about the difference between public and private sector wage rates, but is it all as it seems. If we take a hypothetical public sector dept with a boss earning €250,000 and ten workers at €30,000 we have an mean wage of 50,000. In the private sector the boss (self-employed) doesn't count in the average (mean) wage so mean industrial wage in this sector is €30,000. There are many ways of making statistics say what you want them to say, when was the last time you heard the mode or the median quoted?

ei.sdraob

sfakiaman wrote: »

Much is being bandied around about the difference between public and private sector wage rates, but is it all as it seems. If we take a hypothetical public sector dept with a boss earning €250,000 and ten workers at €30,000 we have an mean wage of 50,000. In the private sector the boss (self-employed) doesn't count in the average (mean) wage so mean industrial wage in this sector is €30,000. There are many ways of making statistics say what you want them to say, when was the last time you heard the mode or the median quoted?

and what is the median between the 2

figures please

Time Magazine

sfakiaman wrote: »

Much is being bandied around about the difference between public and private sector wage rates, but is it all as it seems. If we take a hypothetical public sector dept with a boss earning €250,000 and ten workers at €30,000 we have an mean wage of 50,000. In the private sector the boss (self-employed) doesn't count in the average (mean) wage so mean industrial wage in this sector is €30,000. There are many ways of making statistics say what you want them to say, when was the last time you heard the mode or the median quoted?

Means on their own (e.g. the 48% quoted) are almost useless.

Multivariate regressions do what you want them to, i.e. estimate how much near-identical jobs (e.g. a male engineer, with a masters, with 6 years experience, working 38 hours a week) differ in terms of pay.

The answer is about 30% for crap jobs, and about 10% for top jobs. So an average of about 20%.

meglome

Without starting another argument...

The people I work with from the civil service are all getting 50k plus, and they're not even management. The people I work with in the private sector very few of them indeed are getting that kind of money, even the managers. Obviously this is purely anecdotal and not very representative but the strong impression I'm getting is there's a sizeable pay differential. The average figures it seems don't tell us anything, although they don't look good.

So is there any way to really tell?

solice

meglome wrote: »

So is there any way to really tell?

Benchmarking 3!!!

Followed by Benchmarking 4 two years later and Benchmarking 5 two years after that!

Drumpot

Why is it that benchmarking appears to be only discussed (by those who benefit from it) as a fair way of determining what a person should earn, when they gain something from this action?

If this report shows that public service cuts in salarys need to be implemented, what exactly are unions saying is their reason for striking?

newname

This 48% talk is rubbish, nothing more than a good headline for the papers. It tells us nothing. Take 48% of a clerical officer or a recently qualified nurse and you are below the min wage.

After the pension levy, anymore attack on PS income will not be taken lightly.

Drumpot

newname wrote: »

This 48% talk is rubbish, nothing more than a good headline for the papers. It tells us nothing. Take 48% of a clerical officer or a recently qualified nurse and you are below the min wage.

After the pension levy, anymore attack on PS income will not be taken lightly.

The pensions levy didnt go far enough . . Everybody outside of a PS job knows this .

Bottom line is that there will be more chops, whatever the unions try to wreck . .

toiletduck

newname wrote: »

After the pension levy, anymore attack on PS income will not be taken lightly.

What would you propose?

In all honesty it's amazing that people see this as being unfair. If the boss can't pay, some employees get the chop.

solice

Drumpot wrote: »

Why is it that benchmarking appears to be only discussed (by those who benefit from it) as a fair way of determining what a person should earn, when they gain something from this action?

If this report shows that public service cuts in salarys need to be implemented, what exactly are unions saying is their reason for striking?

I would challenge you to find anyone who says that they will not accept a benchmarking report that indicates there should be a reduction in salary! I imagine you have just completly made that comment up? But if you can, I will thank you and give out to them.

newname wrote: »

After the pension levy, anymore attack on PS income will not be taken lightly.

The greath myth of the pension levy, people didnt take a 10% or more cut in pay. The vast majority of people took an effective rate of 5% to 8%. It was calculated on 3% of the first 15k, 6% of the next 5k and 10% of everything over 20k. So if you were earning 50k you took an effective pay cut of 7.5% or €3,750.

I know people in the private sector that have taken 10% right up to 25% pay cut. I dont know anyone who has taken less than 10% in the private sector. Your hardline unionised attitude is disgraceful!

Drumpot

solice wrote: »

I would challenge you to find anyone who says that they will not accept a benchmarking report that indicates there should be a reduction in salary! I imagine you have just completly made that comment up? But if you can, I will thank you and give out to them.

Didnt Siptu say they would oppose any attempt to reduce public service pay ?

Whether its an independent report or a specified benchmarking report it would be opposed. Public servants on permament contracts arent afraid of losing their jobs like those in the private sector, so they have nothing to lose by throwing their toys out of their prams, irrespective of what a report says.

If, as you say, you think people would accept a benchmarking report without any fight, why dont the government just do one ? Or are you suggesting that the public service pay is fair and in line ?

More to the point, on what basis do you get your belief that people will accept a report that says they should take less money? Considering some of the strikes that have happed recently (with some professions looking for pay increases!) there is more evidence to suggest that the general public are delusional, rather then educated and open to fair debates regarding their salaries.

solice

You said this:

Drumpot wrote: »

Why is it that benchmarking appears to be only discussed (by those who benefit from it) as a fair way of determining what a person should earn, when they gain something from this action?

If this report shows that public service cuts in salarys need to be implemented, what exactly are unions saying is their reason for striking?

Then you said this

Drumpot wrote: »

Didnt Siptu say they would oppose any attempt to reduce public service pay ?

Siptu and Impacts comments were in relation to Bord Snip. The Bord Snip report is not a benchmarking report!

Your first comment is completly wrong, no union has stated their opinions on a 3rd benchmarking report because it is not being discussed (yet). But it would be much more difficult for the unions to act against a benchmarking report considering they benefited so much from the last one.

Drumpot

solice wrote: »

Siptu and Impacts comments were in relation to Bord Snip. The Bord Snip report is not a benchmarking report!

Your first comment is completly wrong, no union has stated their opinions on a 3rd benchmarking report because it is not being discussed (yet). But it would be much more difficult for the unions to act against a benchmarking report considering they benefited so much from the last one.

So why dont the government just setup another Benchmark report ?

You are working off the pretence that unions deserve the benefit of the doubt (for being reasonable) when they shown anything but reason in the past !!

solice

Drumpot wrote: »

So why dont the government just setup another Benchmark report ?

You are working off the pretence that unions deserve the benefit of the doubt (for being reasonable) when they shown anything but reason in the past !!

And you are working off false truths...

Apologies to the OP and mods for dragging this off topic.

Drumpot

solice wrote: »

And you are working off false truths...

Apologies to the OP and mods for dragging this off topic.

False truths ? ? Please explain . .

I said that "It appears that benchmarking" . .

Where have I stated that my comments are fact ?

Did Siptu say that "We wont accept any reduction in public service pay . . Unless its from a benchmarking report!" ?

If you are going to question my opinion in the manner you have, at least have some sort of credible information to back it up . .

Again, if its a simple as saying that the unions and Public servants would happily accept a Benchmarking report, no questions asked, why dont the government simply get one done ? As it would make their job a whole lot easier & we all know how easy this government like their job to be . . .

solice

Drumpot wrote: »

False truths ? ? Please explain . .

I said that "It appears that benchmarking" . .

Where have I stated that my comments are fact ?

Did Siptu say that "We wont accept any reduction in public service pay . . Unless its from a benchmarking report!" ?

If you are going to question my opinion in the manner you have, at least have some sort of credible information to back it up . .

Again, if its a simple as saying that the unions and Public servants would happily accept a Benchmarking report, no questions asked, why dont the government simply get one done ? As it would make their job a whole lot easier & we all know how easy this government like their job to be . . .

There has been no public discussion on another benchmarking report so for you to say that Unions wouldnt accept it is a load of rubbish considering the proposal has not been given to them!

I dont know why the govt wont do another benchmarking report, im not in govt so I cannot answer for them so stop insisting that I do!

By the way, if you read my 2nd post on this thread properly you would see that I am on your side and I believe that there should be further reductions in salaries and the pension levy wasnt enough.

solice

And by the way, this is what you actually said:

Drumpot wrote: »

Why is it that benchmarking appears to be only discussed (by those who benefit from it) as a fair way of determining what a person should earn, when they gain something from this action?

And I have pointed out that Benchmarking hasnt been discussed, Unions havent given an opinion on it so what you said is wrong!

Drumpot

solice wrote: »

There has been no public discussion on another benchmarking report so for you to say that Unions wouldnt accept it is a load of rubbish considering the proposal has not been given to them!

I dont know why the govt wont do another benchmarking report, im not in govt so I cannot answer for them so stop insisting that I do!

By the way, if you read my 2nd post on this thread properly you would see that I am on your side and I believe that there should be further reductions in salaries and the pension levy wasnt enough.

Thats fair enough . . .

Ive never really heard anybody discuss a reverse benchmark report. I just cant understand it. Are they afraid that it might show the public servants as being underpaid ? ?

Drumpot

solice wrote: »

And I have pointed out that Benchmarking hasnt been discussed, Unions havent given an opinion on it so what you said is wrong!

I stand by that comment (said as an opinion not a fact).

You would of thought if the unions & its members had nothing to hide or nothing to lose they would suggest Benchmarking themselves in the interest of the fairness they always look for for their members . .

Suppose its like asking a chicken whats the best ingredients to cook it in. .

Claregirl

meglome wrote: »

The people I work with from the civil service are all getting 50k plus, and they're not even management. The people I work with in the private sector very few of them indeed are getting that kind of money, even the managers. Obviously this is purely anecdotal and not very representative but the strong impression I'm getting is there's a sizeable pay differential. The average figures it seems don't tell us anything, although they don't look good.

So is there any way to really tell?

I'm a civil servant on €46K a year. That's after 11 years and two promotions. I worked extremely hard to get where I am now (and still am). The Dept of finance and the CSO all have stats on what grades / pay rates the Public & Civil service is paid. It would be easy for them to show the breakdown of this magical €50k per year that everyone is on! The only problem with showing that information though is that it will highlight how top heavy the Service is with the high earners. They can't exactly put themselves out of a job can they?:rolleyes:

newname

I know people in the private sector that have taken 10% right up to 25% pay cut. I dont know anyone who has taken less than 10% in the private sector. Your hardline unionised attitude is disgraceful!

Its not a hardline unionised attitude. Its simply that I can't afford a pay cut.

Looking forward over the next 5 years all I can see is raised taxes, lower wages, property tax, government increasing charges for this, increasing charges for that. On top of all this interest rates will rise again.

The medium range looks pretty grim I just want to protect my basic livelihood.

ParkRunner

solice wrote: »

I know people in the private sector that have taken 10% right up to 25% pay cut. I dont know anyone who has taken less than 10% in the private sector. Your hardline unionised attitude is disgraceful!

And I know people in the private sector who have taken 0% paycut. When you average it all out, the pension levy is a more than fair contribution. Not to mention the public sector workers have also taken on board the other levies that have been introduced and will be left with less disposable income once further tax increases are brought in. It is all money coming out of the economy and away from private sector enterprise.

irish_bob

EF wrote: »

And I know people in the private sector who have taken 0% paycut. When you average it all out, the pension levy is a more than fair contribution. Not to mention the public sector workers have also taken on board the other levies that have been introduced and will be left with less disposable income once further tax increases are brought in. It is all money coming out of the economy and away from private sector enterprise.

those in the private sector are not paid out of taxation , they are not paid with money the country does not have and is borrowing , you and your fellow public sector workers will take pay cuts in the coming months , years , either this goverment or some outside power will see to this

tedstriker

What price is security of a job for life? Anyway, for what it's worth:



http://www.statusireland.com/statistics/finacial-statistics-for-ireland/19/Ireland-Public-Sector-Average-Weekly-Earnings.html

johnathan woss

irish_bob wrote: »

those in the private sector are not paid out of taxation , they are not paid with money the country does not have and is borrowing , you and your fellow public sector workers will take pay cuts in the coming months , years , either this goverment or some outside power will see to this

How are the bank employees' wages (and bonuses) getting paid ?

This country is f*cked, but it's laughable that you are spending hours on end on here blaming it all on the public service.

gurramok

johnathan woss wrote: »

How are the bank employees' wages (and bonuses) getting paid ?

This country is f*cked, but it's laughable that you are spending hours on end on here blaming it all on the public service.

Thats an insult to bank employees. They largely did not share any boom in their wages over the years, their bosses aka CEO's did.

Hookey

newname wrote: »

Its not a hardline unionised attitude. Its simply that I can't afford a pay cut.

Looking forward over the next 5 years all I can see is raised taxes, lower wages, property tax, government increasing charges for this, increasing charges for that. On top of all this interest rates will rise again.

The medium range looks pretty grim I just want to protect my basic livelihood.

But that's not the complete picture is it? The cost of living has already devalued by 5% in the last six months and is expected to go a lot further (at least another 5% and probably a lot more with the implosion in house prices). People have to start looking at the bigger picture, and the public sector is part of that; the private sector employees who've already taken pay cuts (like me, 9%), need the public sector to pull its weight in order to deflate the whole economy.

binga

i am a clerical officer. i earn around 26000 a year. it works out about minimum wage. and i work very hard for it. it really annoys me when people go on about the great public sector pay. it was open for anyone to join but people would have turned their noses up at the wages during the boom years.

Drumpot

binga wrote: »

i am a clerical officer. i earn around 26000 a year. it works out about minimum wage. and i work very hard for it. it really annoys me when people go on about the great public sector pay. it was open for anyone to join but people would have turned their noses up at the wages during the boom years.

It really annoys me when people talk of private sector workers as if they were all riding a wave of cream in the boom years.

A large majority of us were not and never got a piece of the pie that those in the higher end of the private sector milked. Most of the people I worked with in the bank or in a large insurance company owned by another bank, didnt even make the average industrial wage, let alone these crazy figures being thrown about. That was in differant departments spread across a couple of huge companies.

Part of my problem was that I refused to screw other people over to get a raise or a promotion (and there were many like me). In the public service you have benchmarking, so all you have to worry about is simply not getting fired. Im not saying that it means nobody works, but it means one less thing for your to worry about.

After 8 years in an industry, with a degree, a diploma and professional qualifications , just when I left a company I was barely on €26,000. I worked very hard for that and had been applying for Public service jobs , but competition for places made it very difficult to even get an interview (which anecodatally for me rubishes the myth that private sector employees wouldnt take public service jobs).

solice

EF wrote: »

And I know people in the private sector who have taken 0% paycut. When you average it all out, the pension levy is a more than fair contribution. Not to mention the public sector workers have also taken on board the other levies that have been introduced and will be left with less disposable income once further tax increases are brought in. It is all money coming out of the economy and away from private sector enterprise.

Everyone, privte and public has been affected by the "other" levies. The only pay decrease for public sector workers so far was the pension levy and as I said, 7.5% reduction for a salary of 50k is not enough!

Johanathan Woss wrote:

How are the bank employees' wages (and bonuses) getting paid ?

Interesting point, only adding it because it relates to some ideas that are floating about on statistics. On Matt Cooper last week, think it was Matt Cooper anyway, there was a guy on saying that the average salary in AIB was 70k. But we all know that the people behind the counter would be on no more than 35k and there are alot more of those than there are managers. Goes to show how big the managers salaries are in order to drag the average up to 70k.

gurramok

And 26k is no where near min wage which is about 18k. About 40% of the workforce paid no tax before the recession, they earned less than 26k.

Doubt there are many min wagers in the public sector!

hobochris

Here is a quick example comparing public and private sector pay:

My self and a friend, lets call her Z, graduated from the same class with honors degrees(same merit) in software development(computer science) both with zero commercial experience.

I went to work for a private sector company, Z joined the public sector.

We have the same title and same role: junior software developer.

After tax I clear about 1800 a month. Z clears about 2400 a month.

I had to take a 10% cut, my previous cleared wage was around 2000 a month.

Z's take home includes the levy's put on the public service.

Z has benefit's such as flexi time and pension and works a 37 hour week, I work a 42.5 hour week 9-5.30.

I have the constant worry that my employer will go bust and not be able to pay me, Z does not have such worries.

Now the public sector argument "I didn't benefit from the boom" Is Bull**** IMO, My pay in comparison to Z's proves this.

now a lot of Company directors may have benefited from the boom, but the only Joe soaps that did, were the ones in the public sector with benchmarking jacking up their pay.

If you compare other roles in the public sector with their private sector equivalent I'm sure you will find similar cases.

So please shut up with your whining and take your share of the pain like the rest of us.

solice

hobochris wrote: »

Z has benefit's such as flexi time and pension and works a 37 hour week, I work a 42.5 hour week 9-5.30.

Do you not get a lunch break?

hobochris

solice wrote: »

Do you not get a lunch break?

I do, but so does Z, so that is irrelevant.

solice

hobochris wrote: »

I do, but so does Z, so that is irrelevant.

Not really, you were dilebriately misleading in your post, working 9-5.30 every day is 8.5 hours, over 5 days that is 42.5 hours. Subtract your 1 hour lunch break and its 37.5 hours.

When you said Z works 37 hours, is that inclusive or exclusive of the lunch break?

hobochris

solice wrote: »

Not really, you were dilebriately misleading in your post, working 9-5.30 every day is 8.5 hours, over 5 days that is 42.5 hours. Subtract your 1 hour lunch break and its 37.5 hours.

When you said Z works 37 hours, is that inclusive or exclusive of the lunch break?

that's inclusive.

solice

hobochris wrote: »

that's inclusive.

So Z works from 9-4.30 every day?

Is Z on flexi time so Z has to make the time up elsewhere to balance it out?

hobochris wrote: »

I went to work for a private sector company, Z joined the public sector.

We have the same title and same role: junior software developer.

After tax I clear about 1800 a month. Z clears about 2400 a month.

I had to take a 10% cut, my previous cleared wage was around 2000 a month.

Z's take home includes the levy's put on the public service.

Z has benefit's such as flexi time and pension and works a 37 hour week, I work a 42.5 hour week 9-5.30.

I have the constant worry that my employer will go bust and not be able to pay me, Z does not have such worries.

Now the public sector argument "I didn't benefit from the boom" Is Bull**** IMO, My pay in comparison to Z's proves this.

now a lot of Company directors may have benefited from the boom, but the only Joe soaps that did, were the ones in the public sector with benchmarking jacking up their pay.

If you compare other roles in the public sector with their private sector equivalent I'm sure you will find similar cases.

So please shut up with your whining and take your share of the pain like the rest of us.

when did you graduate and how long have you been working?

Z started on roughly 30k? You started on 24k?

Z took roughly 6% paycut (pension levy) and you took 10%?

Z is on 28.8k and you are on 21.6k?

Sorry about all the questions but you put alot of info up and havent verified any of it, its pretty much just anecdoetal evidence for now.

sfakiaman

solice wrote: »

Interesting point, only adding it because it relates to some ideas that are floating about on statistics. On Matt Cooper last week, think it was Matt Cooper anyway, there was a guy on saying that the average salary in AIB was 70k. But we all know that the people behind the counter would be on no more than 35k and there are alot more of those than there are managers. Goes to show how big the managers salaries are in order to drag the average up to 70k.

This is the point I was making in my OP. Statistics can be very skewed by including the top earners in the calculations. If you took a crude average of wages in Dail Eirean it would look like the cleaner was on huge money.

meglome

Claregirl wrote: »

I'm a civil servant on €46K a year. That's after 11 years and two promotions. I worked extremely hard to get where I am now (and still am). The Dept of finance and the CSO all have stats on what grades / pay rates the Public & Civil service is paid. It would be easy for them to show the breakdown of this magical €50k per year that everyone is on! The only problem with showing that information though is that it will highlight how top heavy the Service is with the high earners. They can't exactly put themselves out of a job can they?:rolleyes:

Again not to inflame the argument but very few people I know in the private sector with 11 years experience are getting anything like 46k. I'm not in any way suggesting you haven't worked for it but my private sector friends would hardly even know what to do with that kind of money.

jimmmy

hobochris wrote: »

Here is a quick example comparing public and private sector pay:

My self and a friend, lets call her Z, graduated from the same class with honors degrees(same merit) in software development(computer science) both with zero commercial experience.

I went to work for a private sector company, Z joined the public sector.

We have the same title and same role: junior software developer.

After tax I clear about 1800 a month. Z clears about 2400 a month.

I had to take a 10% cut, my previous cleared wage was around 2000 a month.

Z's take home includes the levy's put on the public service.

Z has benefit's such as flexi time and pension and works a 37 hour week, I work a 42.5 hour week 9-5.30.

I have the constant worry that my employer will go bust and not be able to pay me, Z does not have such worries.

Now the public sector argument "I didn't benefit from the boom" Is Bull**** IMO, My pay in comparison to Z's proves this.

now a lot of Company directors may have benefited from the boom, but the only Joe soaps that did, were the ones in the public sector with benchmarking jacking up their pay.

If you compare other roles in the public sector with their private sector equivalent I'm sure you will find similar cases.

So please shut up with your whining and take your share of the pain like the rest of us.

Well said. It does not surprise me. I know of more than a few cases like that as well. Not only is the public sector person way overpaid, they have a shorter working week, more holidays, etc etc etc

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

Well said. It does not surprise me. I know of more than a few cases like that as well...

sfakiaman opened the discussion with the idea that we need a meaningful treatment of statistics. Now we are dealing with anecdote.

In my circle of friends and acquaintances, there are some high-paid public-sector workers; there are also some high-income private sector workers (the wealthiest people I know are in the private sector). I also know people in the public and private sectors who are not earning a lot, and I know unemployed people and I know pensioners from both private and public sectors with different types of pension package. Thus, I can furnish anecdotes in support of anything you want. All of that is irrelevant to a statistical study of private and public sector income differences.

ei.sdraob

jimmmy wrote: »

Well said. It does not surprise me. I know of more than a few cases like that as well. Not only is the public sector person way overpaid, they have a shorter working week, more holidays, etc etc etc

where does one signup

i know i know if we all work for the state then we would achieve communism faster worked great in USSR

Regards

stevoman

meglome wrote: »

Again not to inflame the argument but very few people I know in the private sector with 11 years experience are getting anything like 46k. I'm not in any way suggesting you haven't worked for it but my private sector friends would hardly even know what to do with that kind of money.

Private sector is a broad base. private sector could be anything from the ceo of a bank to a dustbin man. same a public sector is a broad base, that can gofor a high level doctor to an entry level civil servant. its all stupid if you ask me.

Anyways nobody will lose their jobs in the "public service". With over 300.000 of those workers natural wastage of retirments and end of contracts will see all those jobs go and not be replaced.

good for the goverments finances, but not for the witchunters.

Rob_l

solice wrote: »

So Z works from 9-4.30 every day?

Is Z on flexi time so Z has to make the time up elsewhere to balance it out?



when did you graduate and how long have you been working?

Z started on roughly 30k? You started on 24k?

Z took roughly 6% paycut (pension levy) and you took 10%?

Z is on 28.8k and you are on 21.6k?

Sorry about all the questions but you put alot of info up and havent verified any of it, its pretty much just anecdoetal evidence for now.

Hobo cris perhaps you would please answer these questions.

Im sorry I do not believe for one second that your friend works 37 hours a week including their lunch in that time.

I also work in the software development field and I can assure you I would certainly have earned more working in the private sector than the public sector.

At the present most of the work I would be offerred is contract work and because of the current situation I have no interest in that, but I could still earn far more in the private sector than I will working for the cash cow government with my 37 hour week of lunch :rolleyes:

irish_bob

binga wrote: »

i am a clerical officer. i earn around 26000 a year. it works out about minimum wage. and i work very hard for it. it really annoys me when people go on about the great public sector pay. it was open for anyone to join but people would have turned their noses up at the wages during the boom years.

you earn far more than minimum wage at 26 k per year and you earn probaly 8 to 10 k more than you would earn in an equivelent skill set in the private sector and thats before we even mention pensions

irish_bob

hobochris wrote: »

Here is a quick example comparing public and private sector pay:

My self and a friend, lets call her Z, graduated from the same class with honors degrees(same merit) in software development(computer science) both with zero commercial experience.

I went to work for a private sector company, Z joined the public sector.

We have the same title and same role: junior software developer.

After tax I clear about 1800 a month. Z clears about 2400 a month.

I had to take a 10% cut, my previous cleared wage was around 2000 a month.

Z's take home includes the levy's put on the public service.

Z has benefit's such as flexi time and pension and works a 37 hour week, I work a 42.5 hour week 9-5.30.

I have the constant worry that my employer will go bust and not be able to pay me, Z does not have such worries.

Now the public sector argument "I didn't benefit from the boom" Is Bull**** IMO, My pay in comparison to Z's proves this.

now a lot of Company directors may have benefited from the boom, but the only Joe soaps that did, were the ones in the public sector with benchmarking jacking up their pay.

If you compare other roles in the public sector with their private sector equivalent I'm sure you will find similar cases.

So please shut up with your whining and take your share of the pain like the rest of us.

ignore the i didnt cause this mess crap they all spout

they all attended some form of tuition camp at the begining of this year where they were briefed by mess,rs begg and o connor on what slogans to use when debating the issue of public sector reform , pay , pensions etc

theese slogans have no meaning yet are suprisingly effective , i do admire the consistency with which to the last man and woman the public sector are on message with theese banner headlines or perhaps admire is not the word , scary , thier like clones in thier uniformity of message

Claregirl

meglome wrote: »

Again not to inflame the argument but very few people I know in the private sector with 11 years experience are getting anything like 46k. I'm not in any way suggesting you haven't worked for it but my private sector friends would hardly even know what to do with that kind of money.

Not just 11 years experience two promotions also which bring extra responsibility, extra hours and a huge amount of extra hassle and stress having to deal with underperformance, staff sick leave and still get the job done!

amacca

irish_bob wrote: »

you earn far more than minimum wage at 26 k per year and you earn probaly 8 to 10 k more than you would earn in an equivelent skill set in the private sector and thats before we even mention pensions

I have worked in both the private sector and the public sector, Im currently self employed and doing fine thank god. In the past I worked for a contract company called cpm (I think, its been a while) and my duties were basically similar to a clerical officer, office work, keeping accurate records or reports, crunching some numbers, being able to use a keyboard etc.

I started this job the summer I left college (2001) , I was working for the same rate as others in the office even though I had a degree at the time and they did not. I started off on 24k, after 11 months I was promoted to a not much more responsible position and received a pay rise on top of previous 6 monthly rise which brought me up to 30k. Now Im not suggesting that I would get anything close to this now for a similar role but it does show that private sector companies were offering this sort of renumeration for clerical officer type duties so there has to be some balance.

Out of curiosity...

1) Do people believe that all public servants are 48% overpaid? I ask this because I continually see posts with figures of 50% 40% 55% overpaid nurses/gards etc bandied about (not necessarily by yourself but by others) and compared with countries with Finland etc, how can there be a valid comparison....isnt it fair to say that their cost of living is much lower, their healthcare system is much better, they have stable rents etc so therefore they dont need to be paid as much....we are not experiencing 48% deflation so why should public wages be targeted for this sort of adjustment even the 5% figure is made up of monthly mortgage payment reductions in the main due to interest rates being on the floor but this will not last for ever. Do people think a staff nurse (while he or she may be overpaid) is 48% or even 30% overpaid at €31,855 rising to €45,102 after 10 years given the cost of living in this country at the moment? Do you think after qualifying they should be on €21,533 gross (32.4% reduction to get rid of the 48% premium) or €24,528 gross (23.1% reduction to get rid of a 30% premium ) given the opportunity cost of getting their qualification and the fact they chose to and competed to do it and their contract (at least for some was permanent) and they made financial commitments based on this level of earning and they joined precisely because it was secure and may not have made these commitments if they were in the private sector.

2) Do people believe that public sector pensions are way over the top while private sector pensions are adequate, would it not be more accurate to say that private sector pensions are wholly inadequate, the basic concept of a defined contribution pension is that you have to pay a defined amount but you are not guaranteed any proportion of what you get paid at the end, is this not as unacceptable as gold plated public service pensions---think about it, you pay with no guarantee what you get out in the end, shouldnt at least some of peoples ire be directed at private sector companies and pension providers who seriously downgraded pension provisions for workers in the case of the former and placed wholly inappropriate amounts of pension funds in equities in the case of the latter?


Im not saying I disagree fundamentally about public service wages going down but I do think there has to be some balance.

for instance:

public sector earn a premium of 48% over private sector

no coincidence I saw this one in the independant (or ibec mouthpiece as I like to think of it)

this is basically sensationalist and as previous posters have mentioned is based on an average figure which does not tell us much and as another poster has mentioned looks plainly ridiculous if applied to the lower to average wage in the public sector. take our friend above for example earning 26k with a 32.4% reduction he would be on €17,576 gross, taking rent allowance etc into account this guy would be nearly be better off on the dole...as it stands that's the best permanent job around, the worst cuts being proposed for this are 5%


perhaps we could agree that public sector wages are higher than private sector but the worst offenders are those at the top of the table and they should be experiencing the the biggest cuts?.......I notice the private sector does not seem to be getting this right either though, witness seanie fitz et al squirreling away untold millions into protected retirements savings schemes while many ceos, board chairmen etc continue to give themselves incredible renumeration packages at the expense of sharholders and workers in their companies etc....so perhaps some anger should be directed there?


gold plated public sector pensions

no doubt about it they are pretty good but they have gotten worse in the not so distant past and you still have to work your 40 years to get a full one + when you die the equity you have tied up in them dies with you to a certain extent. not true of avcs (available to both public and private sector)

perhaps we can agree that the index linking of public pensions is costly and the contributions that public servants make to them should be more but perhaps we could also agree that private sector companies are taking a large percentage of their employess for a ride and that instead of continually say that public service rolls royce pensions should be dismantled simply because private sector ones are so poor/expensive some of the debate should focus on improving pension provision for the average worker in the private sector so there would not be so much to complain about.


job for life

much better security than some but not all private sector jobs. should public service pay be reduced because of this, Im not quite sure, I think there are valid arguments on both sides here.

some public servants will argue there was a downward revision of salaries in the benchmarking agreement to take this into account so it has already been factored in....I do not know how valid this is but a figuire of 12% was mentioned and if it was factored properly (however one could manage to value job security I dont know, what value does job security have if you are paid little above the minimum wage for instance comapred to job security for a high court judge etc) and you want to remove a public servants security then you could be looking at an immediate 12% pay rise if this is the case.

some public servants will say they chose to compete for the job on the basis that it was secure and had a good pension while others opted for the private sector. If these private sector workers now consider the public service to be so fantastic why didnt they go for it back during the boom(sorry bubble years) and why shouldnt these public sector workers enjoy the better conditions they opted for. I would say that people in the public sector (at least some of the ones I know and myself when I was in it) invested (and I mean invested in the true sense of the word here) in education and training to be able to compete successfully for these jobs in the public sector precisely because the conditions on offer were good and because of this they have a right to expect a certain amount (not all obviously but a minimum level and perhaps a certain premium above private sector) of the conditions they signed up for. They did compete for these superior conditions and must have some right to expect that their contract will be honoured.

eg: for my private sector jobs I interviewed against 5 other candidates the first time, 1 other candidate the second time and 15 other candidates the third time.

for the public sector job I used to work in, I had to first get a degree to be eligible to do the diploma which would allow me to do this job, and I had to then compete with what I was told was a pool of approximately 9,000 applicants to get on this diploma. when successfuk I then had to give up a year and a half of earnings and pay the guts of €10k on fees and accomodation etc. When this was done I had to then interview of the job itself and one of the reasons I got the job is because I also had a masters degree (which equals another year and a half of lost earnings plus the cost of living etc) I put myself through this because I enjoyed it to some extent, knew it was beneficial for me but also so I could get the job which to me was superior to what I had, Im sure there are many others like me.....given the oportunity cost of getting the job in some areas of the public sector and the fact that those were the contractual conditions offered to people on entering you could hardly have expected them to say no thats too generous could you and you can hardly expect their contract to be radically altered now except perhaps for new entrants....thats what was offered, thats what they agreed to do. Wasnt the electricians strike in the private sector hinged on similar arguments?

private sector interests will argue that we simply cant afford the public sector and perhaps we cant at the current level but the completely uncompromising way they go about their business is just as bad (in fact in my opinion its worse) than the way the unions go about their business. To fold wholly to the demands of ibec (big business not really small and medium sized although their agenda may suit smes in the short term) means a real erosion of workers rights in the public service but only as a lever to even more severly reduce the rights of workers in the private sector so more profits can pe squirreled away in ceos and large institutional investors pockets.

Couldnt we agree that things need to change but not just in the public service, couldnt we agree that while wages, conditions in the public service should be reduced, the demands of the likes of IBEC et al should be scrutinised very very carefully as well given the damage private sector companies (who also are beneficiaries of taxpayers money) will do to our country if they are pandered too also? btw I would currently benefit if IBEC were listened to and their propsals were listened too but I wonder for how long and I also wonder how many people I would be exploiting in the meantime there must be a happy medium where a majority of public and private sector can coexist without continually bitching at each other and instead start bitching at the real culprits who were largely responsible for this mess.



Anyway to me it seems that the so called "statistics" we have seen to date on this are wholly misleading and it would be really helpful if someone actually did a fair comparison based on educational attainment, experience, true cost of living, international comparisons taking resources into account and opportunity costs etc rather than both sides tabloid efforts to date.

sceptre

amacca wrote: »

... is 48% or even 30% overpaid at €31,855 rising to €45,102 after 10 years given the cost of living in this country at the moment? Do you think after qualifying they should be on €16,554 gross (48% reduction) or €22 gross (30% reduction)


...take our friend above for example earning 26k with a 48% cut he would be on 13,520, taking rent allowance etc into account this guy would be better on the dole...

I've snipped a lot out.

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of it (as well as the accuracy or inaccuracy of it), your maths are wrong. Or specifically, your divisor is wrong.

If X is paid 48% more than Y, to reduce the wages of X to equal Y's, you don't reduce X's wages by 48%, you reduce them by 32.4% (48/148, not 48/100 to give the reduction factor - try it by reducing 148 to 100 if it needs more sense).

Your point may be just as valid with the correct figures, which you'll have to recalculate yourself in your own time. Or they may not be. That's something for you to decide, but it's easier and fairer for everyone else to decide if they've got the correct hypothetically reduced figures.

Easy mistake to make, assuming you don't do an awful lot of work with numbers, easy enough to fix.

amacca

sceptre wrote: »

I've snipped a lot out.

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of it (as well as the accuracy or inaccuracy of it), your maths are wrong. Or specifically, your divisor is wrong.

If X is paid 48% more than Y, to reduce the wages of X to equal Y's, you don't reduce X's wages by 48%, you reduce them by 32.4% (48/148, not 48/100 to give the reduction factor - try it by reducing 148 to 100 if it needs more sense).

Your point may be just as valid with the correct figures, which you'll have to recalculate yourself in your own time. Or they may not be. That's something for you to decide, but it's easier and fairer for everyone else to decide if they've got the correct hypothetically reduced figures.

Easy mistake to make, assuming you don't do an awful lot of work with numbers, easy enough to fix.

Apologies, you are correct!

btw its an easy mistake to make even if you do work with numbers, my degree is in Maths and Physics and I was doing some accounts when I posted will edit post to reflect this + hope I dont have egg on my face again as its late and I could very easily make mistakes due to sleep deprivation.

gurramok

And your cost of living part is wrong too. Finland for example is an expensive country to live in along with the Nordic's and even the likes of France/Belgium/Holland.

If a bunch of people are overpaid, they get more money in their pockets hence pushes up prices for everyone else, its a vicious cycle.

Anyway, the big picture at the moment is that the employer of the public service is going broke and cannot afford to pay them for the next few years, this part just cannot seem to register with PS militant types.