Civil Service vs. Public Service

nesf

Right this distinction needs to be made clear.

The Civil Service is effectively the official bureaucracy. They are the Clerical Officers, Executive Officers etc who are attached directly to a Government Department. There are also civil servants in other areas like An Garda Síochána and similar but they are not typical workers in said organisations (i.e. not Gardaí etc).

The Public Service is effectively everyone else in the Public Sector and pretty much the normal public servant for someone to meet or deal with. This includes Teachers, Doctors, Nurses, Gardaí, Librarians etc et al.


Someone more familiar than I with the exact ins and outs of the Government Agencies (the CSO etc) about the average employee's exact designation (I think most/all CSO employees are Civil Servants but I could be wrong) but those are the rough outlines of the difference.


This is particularly of interest with regard to the Comptroller & Auditor General report on sick leave that's been bounced around recently: http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/69_Managing_Sickness_Absences.pdf

It's about the Civil Service not the Public Service!

Riskymove

Nesf

Yes you are generally correct

The Civil Service is generally regarded as staff in the Central Departments (i.e. Justice, Education etc) as well as other State organisations like the CSO.

There are also Civil Servants on secondment in many semi-state organisations and other such bodies.

It generally makes up around 10% of the Public Service numbers wise.

johnnyskeleton

nesf wrote: »

It's about the Civil Service not the Public Service!

What exactly is about the Civil Service?

The whole where cuts should be made debate or am I missing something?

Because if it is I disagree.

The debate is not about who should get cuts, what is fair or any other the other fluff that is put out there.

The fundamental issue is this: The government is spending too much money, which they cannot sustain.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What exactly is about the Civil Service?

The whole where cuts should be made debate or am I missing something?

Because if it is I disagree.

The debate is not about who should get cuts, what is fair or any other the other fluff that is put out there.

The fundamental issue is this: The government is spending too much money, which they cannot sustain.

No, the CAG report on sick leave in the Civil Sector here: http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/69_Managing_Sickness_Absences.pdf

It was taken by people to be a report on sick leave patterns in the public sector which is incorrect.

S.L.F

Basically the public service deals with the public and the civil service deals with the running of the city.

Ronando

Thanks for that - an important distinction that I was aware of but was not aware of in the context of this report, which has been blanketly (is that a word?) applied to the whole public sector.

No, of course, if you believe the civil service sample to be a representative one of the whole public sector...

fartmaster

nesf wrote: »

Right this distinction needs to be made clear.

The Civil Service is effectively the official bureaucracy. They are the Clerical Officers, Executive Officers etc who are attached directly to a Government Department. There are also civil servants in other areas like An Garda Síochána and similar but they are not typical workers in said organisations (i.e. not Gardaí etc).

The Public Service is effectively everyone else in the Public Sector and pretty much the normal public servant for someone to meet or deal with. This includes Teachers, Doctors, Nurses, Gardaí, Librarians etc et al.


Someone more familiar than I with the exact ins and outs of the Government Agencies (the CSO etc) about the average employee's exact designation (I think most/all CSO employees are Civil Servants but I could be wrong) but those are the rough outlines of the difference.


This is particularly of interest with regard to the Comptroller & Auditor General report on sick leave that's been bounced around recently: http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/69_Managing_Sickness_Absences.pdf

It's about the Civil Service not the Public Service!

What EXACTLY is the point of this thread?

The Civil Service is directly linked to the Public Service one could not function without the other.

P. Breathnach

fartmaster wrote: »

What EXACTLY is the point of this thread?

Surely getting things clarified is point enough. There has been considerable ignorance, misunderstanding, and wilful distortion in many discussions in this forum.

The Civil Service is directly linked to the Public Service one could not function without the other.

The private sector is linked to the public sector, and one could not function without the other. That does not mean that they are the same.

oldyouth

S.L.F wrote: »

Basically the public service deals with the public and the civil service deals with the running of the city.

What City??

nesf

fartmaster wrote: »

What EXACTLY is the point of this thread?

To clarify exactly what Civil Service means and what Public Service means. People were mixing up the two. Obviously you can't have one without the other.

jimmycrackcorm

Why a distinction - are we to have seperate public vs private and civil vs private arguments instead?

P. Breathnach

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why a distinction - are we to have seperate public vs private and civil vs private arguments instead?

Why not? It makes about as much sense as some of the other distinctions people have been making.

nesf

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why a distinction - are we to have seperate public vs private and civil vs private arguments instead?

No. The reason is that some reports are made on just the Civil Service not the whole Public Service. People get things mixed up and apply the results of the report to all of the Public Service.

Kristopherus

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why a distinction - are we to have seperate public vs private and civil vs private arguments instead?

Well said, Jimmy. IMHO there is absolutely no need for this thread at all

peking97

Riskymove wrote: »

Nesf

Yes you are generally correct

The Civil Service is generally regarded as staff in the Central Departments (i.e. Justice, Education etc) as well as other State organisations like the CSO.

There are also Civil Servants on secondment in many semi-state organisations and other such bodies.

It generally makes up around 10% of the Public Service numbers wise.

I think the important point to consider is how their salaries and pensions are funded.

Civil Service - salaries and pensions paid from Central Funds.

Public Service (Gardaí, Nurses etc) - also from Central Funds.

Public Sector (RTÉ, ESB, etc) - not from Central Funds

S.L.F

oldyouth wrote: »

What City??

City...Why Dublin of course:D!!!

I meant they are the ones who keeps the organisations (Ireland) running.

They are the grease that keep the cogs running smoothly.

Doubtless there are better ways to expressing it but it's the best I can think of

joolsveer

The civil service has nothing to do with the running of Dublin city. Dublin City Council is the local aurthority which looks after public administration in Dublin.

granturismo

Kristopherus wrote: »

Well said, Jimmy. IMHO there is absolutely no need for this thread at all

Agreed, this is a waste of a sticky.

Civil Service - revenue, dept of Ag etc
Public Service - teachers, emergency services, local authorities etc
Semi State - ESB etc

The CSO link to sick leave in the OP relate to Civil Servants only - fair point. In most threads 'PS' is used when referring to Public and Civil servants and I think most people understand this.

BostonB

A lot of posts seem to use Public and Civil service interchangably. But they are not the same thing.

jimmycrackcorm

Sinn Fein became Sinn Fein/IRA
Public Service now the Civil/Public Service

Is this where we are going ....?

moceri

I was quite surprised that 113,000 Public sector workers employed before 1995 will still continue to pay a reduced PRSI rate of 0.9% whilst those of us in the Private sector have to stump up at the 4% Rate.

Why not level the playing field.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-recession/113000-public-servants-will-escape-prsi-hike-1962365.html

P. Breathnach

moceri wrote: »

I was quite surprised that 113,000 Public sector workers employed before 1995 will still continue to pay a reduced PRSI rate of 0.9% whilst those of us in the Private sector have to stump up at the 4% Rate.

Why not level the playing field.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-recession/113000-public-servants-will-escape-prsi-hike-1962365.html

There's Indo journalism for you.

Public servants who pay the lower rate of PRSI are paid a lower salary, which effectively levels the playing field. That fact is not mentioned, because it would undermine the outraged-on-behalf-of-the-public stance that makes for lurid red-top headlines. [The giveaway should have been the mentioning of "senior higher paid civil servants"; it wouldn't have the same resonance if the comment had been made about middle-aged hospital porters.]

Wishbone Ash

moceri wrote: »

those of us in the Private sector have to stump up at the 4% Rate.

Why not level the playing field.

Your 4% entitles you to a lot more than those of us on the D1.

moceri

This evening's Six-One News bulletin: (6:40)
View Patricia Mc Dermott, a Public Sector Worker wingeing about having to forego this year's Foreign Holiday and unable to afford Private Health Insurance this year.

Welcome to Planet Reality!!!!!!!

Some people would be grateful to be in your position. They are struggling to put food on their Table and heat their Homes.

nico90

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why a distinction - are we to have seperate public vs private and civil vs private arguments instead?

Divide & Conquer!

ghost_ie

moceri wrote: »

I was quite surprised that 113,000 Public sector workers employed before 1995 will still continue to pay a reduced PRSI rate of 0.9% whilst those of us in the Private sector have to stump up at the 4% Rate.

Why not level the playing field.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-recession/113000-public-servants-will-escape-prsi-hike-1962365.html

Before 1995 certain sectors of the Public Service paid a reduced rate of PRSI but they weren't given any choice in the matter, and they found their entitlements were reduced. I know of two individuals, one of whom worked in the signal engineers' department in CIE and the other was a biochemist in Guinnesses. Both took early retirement in the 80's. The latter was entitled to claim social welfare on top of his pension whilst the former wasn't as he had not paid the full PRSI. The CIE employee was never given a choice as to whether he paid the full PRSI or not - if he had been given the choice he would have paid the full stamp but was not allowed to do so.

S.L.F

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There's Indo journalism for you.

Whatever it is it's not journalism.

P. Breathnach

S.L.F wrote: »

Whatever it is it's not journalism.

I like to use oxymorons.

jimmycrackcorm

nico90 wrote: »

Divide & Conquer!

So we are agreed now. The civil service is the one that both private sector and public will rant against. It will be difficult seeing as they are, well, so civil....

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63588072&postcount=118

freefromgov

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So we are agreed now. The civil service is the one that both private sector and public will rant against. It will be difficult seeing as they are, well, so civil....

:mad::(:eek::o

hondasam

public or civil the wages are paid by the country,its all just a status thing. Im a civil servant but really its no different to working for any boss, you come in do your job go home and get paid on a friday.

BostonB

There wasn't any need to drag this thread up.

bryaner

http://rob.nu/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/facepalm.gif

daltonm

Actually it's an interesting thread - granted I really don't know what the difference is between the Public Service and the Civil Service is, but the consensus appears to be that the PS is Front line staff and the CS is Admin. Not true, for example, Prison Officers, who would be assumed to be "front line" are Civil Servants for some bizarre reason!!

BostonB

Its bizarre because its nonsense. CS and PS is not split like that.

daltonm

BostonB wrote: »

Its bizarre because its nonsense. CS and PS is not split like that.

I said the consensus appears to be that the civil service are the admin and the public service are the front line - I merely offered an example of how it is NOT divided that way.

BostonB

Sorry my mistake. I read it all wrong.

Godge

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There's Indo journalism for you.

Public servants who pay the lower rate of PRSI are paid a lower salary, which effectively levels the playing field. That fact is not mentioned, because it would undermine the outraged-on-behalf-of-the-public stance that makes for lurid red-top headlines. [The giveaway should have been the mentioning of "senior higher paid civil servants"; it wouldn't have the same resonance if the comment had been made about middle-aged hospital porters.]

Not true. A common misbelief which I have attempted to address a few times on boards.

The higher rate paid post-1995 was to compensate for the higher pension contribution. This was introduced at the same time as the higher PRSI.

Pension contributions went from 1.5% approx. to 6.5% approx and salaries were increased by 5% to reflect this. PRSI changed from 0.9% to 4% but the higher rate gave more benefits so no salary increase compensated.

The proof of this is seen in teachers salaries where there is only one salary rate because there was always a 6.5% pension contribution for teachers even before 1995. However, those teachers employed after 1995, while they saw no increase in pension contribution and no consequential increase in salary did have to pay the higher rate of PRSI.

I have linked in other posts to civil service circulars that set it out.

Godge

The public sector refers to those who are employed by the State.

It includes:

Civil servants - employed under the 1956 Act - Government Departments, prison officers etc. - their rate of pay is controlled by the Minister for Finance directly
Public Servants - employed under various other pieces of legislation - Universities Acts, Education Act, Local Government Acts etc. - their rate of pay is controlled either directly by the Minister for Finance or through another Minister e.g. the Minister for Education in the case of the VEC Acts.
Commercial Semi-State Employees - ESB, Bord Na Mona, Bord Gais - their rate of pay is controlled by their organisation and board of Directors - unlike the other two categories they have escaped both the pension levy and pay cuts.

P. Breathnach

Godge wrote: »

Not true. A common misbelief which I have attempted to address a few times on boards.

The higher rate paid post-1995 was to compensate for the higher pension contribution. This was introduced at the same time as the higher PRSI.

Pension contributions went from 1.5% approx. to 6.5% approx and salaries were increased by 5% to reflect this. PRSI changed from 0.9% to 4% but the higher rate gave more benefits so no salary increase compensated.

The proof of this is seen in teachers salaries where there is only one salary rate because there was always a 6.5% pension contribution for teachers even before 1995. However, those teachers employed after 1995, while they saw no increase in pension contribution and no consequential increase in salary did have to pay the higher rate of PRSI.

I have linked in other posts to civil service circulars that set it out.

Nearly a year after I made my post you come along and challenge it.

The story is a bit more complicated than you say, because pension contributions for post-1995 recruits are less than 6.5%: the first tranche (2 x COAP) is levied at 1.5%, and the top slice at 6.5%. This is because of the integration of SW pensions into the combined superannuation package. Pay rates were adjusted to make the effect of the changes neutral.

cyclopath2001

Godge wrote: »

The public sector refers to those who are employed by the State.

Including a number of state-controlled/owned banks?

The Orb

It's very simple, Civil Servants work directly to a Minister.

P. Breathnach

The Orb wrote: »

It's very simple, Civil Servants work directly to a Minister.

Not quite as simple as that. The staff of the Revenue Commissioners do not work directly to a Minister, but they are civil servants nevertheless.

CJhaughey

Here is another anomaly.
I know that decentralisation is hardly spoken about anymore but there was a thing called the Central Applications Facility.
It was a kind of clearing house for staff to apply for jobs decentralised to other locations.
The way it worked was unusual though. A Civil servant could apply for a job in a Public service company, however a Public servant could not apply for a job in the Civil service.
It showed quite clearly that the CS is not the same as the PS.

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

Pension contributions went from 1.5% approx. to 6.5% approx and salaries were increased by 5% to reflect this.

So nothing changed basically for the employee, the taxpayer still stumped up the difference.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me in the slightest :mad:

crixus veritas

One of the big distinctions is that a Civil Servant is not permitted to run in any election, be it local or national, whereas a Public Servant may take a career break and do so.

yarwood

Who cares about the difference some are paid huge amount others are paid even more.

That is all about to come to a shuddering halt as soon as someone foreign gets their paws on Irelands fiscal policy, whoever that may be, it won't matter then what group you are in so stop getting uptight about it

CalmDown...

Are central bank employees part of the civil service??

P. Breathnach

CalmDown... wrote: »

Are central bank employees part of the civil service??

No.

gigino

Is the regulator / people in the regulators office civil service, or public service like the Central Bank ?