Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Latest figure on public v private pay released by CSO

  • 22-04-2010 05:53PM
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 792 ✭✭✭


    Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared
    with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector.
    http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

    The wage gap between the well paid and pensioned public sector, and the much poorer paid, and less secure private sector, widens further.
    Time for the lifeboats.


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,639 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    average of €10 an hour more for the PS :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    In fairness the data doesn't include the "pension" cuts..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,243 ✭✭✭kelle


    Where, where???? I don't see it on my wageslip.....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Welease wrote: »
    In fairness the data doesn't include the "pension" cuts..

    FFS

    pension is not an income!


    if you want to count is as "income" then start paying tax on it (41% rate in most cases in PS)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,582 ✭✭✭WalterMitty


    Not suprised. Out of all the people i know in private and public sector, the public sector are generally much better paid while working less hard and being less educated. This is from a large circle of people in 20s and 30s i know who are accountants,teachers, gardai, civil servants, engineers, computer grads etc.
    These pay comparisions dont even allow for the much extra renumeration the public sector get in terms of jobs security and DB pensions.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    FFS

    pension is not an income!


    if you want to count is as "income" then start paying tax on it (41% rate in most cases in PS)

    I am well aware of that pension's are not income.. But payments taken from your salary do in reality lessen the direct "income" that people measure. The CSO survey is pre-levy, which has impacted their actual "income"

    (their.. not mine.. I am private sector, I disagree with the terms of the PS pension, and you can check any previous PS pension thread on here and see my position quiet clearly, but there is little point in having discussion if people want to ignore actual facts).

    Looks like I am not the only one who considers it somewhat important.. The report you are discussing actually calls it out..

    "Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared
    with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector. Earnings in the latter are,
    however calculated before deduction of the pension levy that was introduced
    in March 2009.
    " CSO http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

    "In the private sector, the drop was 2.7% to €607.15. In the public sector, earnings rose 1.9% to €948.16, but this did not take the public sector pension levy into account. The levy was brought in in March 22009." http://www.rte.ie/business/2010/0422/cso.html

    Maybe you could try being a bit more balanced....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Welease wrote: »
    I am well aware of that pension's are not income.. But payments taken from your salary do in reality lessen the direct "income" that people measure. The CSO survey is pre-levy, which has impacted their actual "income"

    (their.. not mine.. I am private sector, I disagree with the terms of the PS pension, and you can check any previous PS pension thread on here and see my position quiet clearly, but there is little point in having discussion if people want to ignore actual facts).

    I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

    oh and the facts are linked to in OPs post, do look at them


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

    oh and the facts are linked to in OPs post, do look at them

    /sigh...

    a pension is not income.. a levy for said pension does detract from your income..

    The report the OP linked.. and the facts that the OP linked to also state this fact..

    "Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared
    with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector. Earnings in the latter are,
    however calculated before deduction of the pension levy that was introduced in March 2009.
    "

    Did you bother to read it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,166 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Effectively public sector workers could be paying 50% of their pay into a pension but it still wouldn't show up on any cso stats and it will be this time next year before the stats show that public sector workers have taken any sort of a cut


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,521 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    As a matter of interest are commercial semistate considered public or private?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    Japer wrote: »
    Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 2.7% annually compared
    with a rise of 1.9% in the public sector.
    http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/earnlabcosts.pdf

    The wage gap between the well paid and pensioned public sector, and the much poorer paid, and less secure private sector, widens further.
    Time for the lifeboats.

    the sooner the imf come in here and sort this bull....... out the better , its a nuts county,
    ran by ps for ps , paid for by serfs


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Taxipete29


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    FFS

    pension is not an income!


    if you want to count is as "income" then start paying tax on it (41% rate in most cases in PS)

    Its been stated time and time again on this forum that there are workers paying the levy who are not now or never will be enititled to a PS pension.

    Lets call it for what it was, a pay cut.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66 ✭✭Galmay


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

    oh and the facts are linked to in OPs post, do look at them

    Well if you want to be technical about it, the so called 'pension levy' is not actually about pensions whatsoever.

    It is offically called 'the emergency measures in the public finances bill levy' not 'pension levy', despite it being a much catchier title! The legislation explicitly states that the levy is does not in any way contribute to an employees pension and all the money goes back into the general government coffers. Furthermore, the levy applies to all earnings regardless of whether such income is reckonable for pension purposes. In reality, the levy is a levy on working in the public sector, not a levy to pay for pension entitlements.

    I know some posters will retort that the ps should be paying for these pensions anyway, and they are to an extent, but not through the unfortunately named 'pension levy'. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to wish to include 'levy' reductions in the above quoted figures.

    But of course this also gives Brian Lenihan the opportunity to introduce an actual pension levy next december if he so wishes...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,166 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    Galmay wrote: »

    But of course this also gives Brian Lenihan the opportunity to introduce an actual pension levy next december if he so wishes...

    Not if Croke Park is approved by union members :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 254 ✭✭BeardyFunzo


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

    oh and the facts are linked to in OPs post, do look at them

    Brian Lenihan himself on the RTE news called the pension levy a pay cut. The pension levy has nothing to do with any pension. it is a pay cut.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    In response to the back and forth arguments that go on here between posters regarding cuts that have been taken by the public service i went and did some quick calculations.

    Figures include increment grant of 4% which seems to be the average, higher if you are lower on the scale, lower if you are further up.

    No account has been taken of employees at the end of their increment scale, however to balance no account has been taken of the fact that in the 14 months since Feb 09 two increment payments will have been paid to some employees.

    5ap1sx.jpg

    Also should be noted that the present value of future pension funding requirements have not been included.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong.

    Of course pensions are income, are you refusing to talk to people in the real world.
    the sooner the imf come in here and sort this bull.......

    Do you mean the bull on this Board?

    This thread is typical of the anti PS bias of posters here and many people here seem to carry on as if the cuts had not taken place. The data specifically excludes the effect of the pay cut in the Emergency measures in the public finances Bill, so PS pay in fact declined by 5%, twice the decline in the private sector. Then you have red herrings like increments brought into the mix, increments are a form of slow motion promotion and are not relevant to this discussion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Then you have red herrings like increments brought into the mix, increments are a form of slow motion promotion and are not relevant to this discussion.

    Moving up a grade is a promotion, increments are non performance related pay rises for doing the same job.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    ardmacha wrote: »
    This thread is typical of the anti PS bias of posters here and many people here seem to carry on as if the cuts had not taken place. The data specifically excludes the effect of the pay cut in the Emergency measures in the public finances Bill, so PS pay in fact declined by 5%, twice the decline in the private sector. Then you have red herrings like increments brought into the mix, increments are a form of slow motion promotion and are not relevant to this discussion.

    In fairness :) (we have to look at both sides), you cannot ignore increments.. they are an increase in income (as are bonus's etc.). The 5% Levy is not twice the PrS cut, when you start from a positive position, it brings to cuts down to a similar/greater level, not twice the level.

    All the CSO data shows, is that the PS were slightly slower in reacting to the downturn that the PrS.

    Edit - And it does need stating for the board warriors on both sides.. a bigger decrease on either side does not necessarily mean you are hard done by.. If you are overpaid by 20% and receive a 10% decrease and the other sector has a 5% decrease (made up example), you are still overpaid in comparison.. irrespective.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    n fairness (we have to look at both sides), you cannot ignore increments.. they are an increase in income (as are bonus's etc.).

    People get promoted, move to better positions etc in the private sector too. The data includes all of this.
    The 5% Levy is not twice the PrS cut, when you start from a positive position, it brings to cuts down to a similar/greater level, not twice the level.

    The Levy is 7% or 7.5% on average, so the PS cuts are indeed twice the level +2-7 = -5%.

    All the CSO data shows is that the Private sector were much slower in reacting to the downturn than the Public Sector.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    ardmacha wrote: »
    People get promoted, move to better positions etc in the private sector too. The data includes all of this.

    It does... but you want to ignore increments.. is that fair?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Increments are not relevant to the question of paycuts. It is necessary to ignore them for clarity in the discussion. Increments may have relevance to an individuals finances but we are discussing the aggregate here.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I don't want to have a discussion with people who insist on calling pensions as income, its just plain wrong

    Pensions are income surely?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    ardmacha wrote: »
    The Levy is 7% or 7.5% on average, so the PS cuts are indeed twice the level +2-7 = -5%.

    All the CSO data shows is that the Private sector were much slower in reacting to the downturn than the Public Sector.

    The levy is about 6% on average, a 7.5% average would mean that the average wage in the public sector was €80,000 and this would be silly of course, the average wage is a much more reasonable €50,000.

    Of course the elephant in the room here is the hundreds of thousands who have lost their jobs in the private sector. This has the double effect of increasing the average wage through the inclusion of redundancy payments and the complete removal of people from the payroll so that others can maintain their wage levels.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Increments are not relevant to the question of paycuts. It is necessary to ignore them for clarity in the discussion. Increments may have relevance to an individuals finances but we are discussing the aggregate here.

    There is absolutely no logic in this statement, are you saying that increments are somehow omitted from the aggregate public sector pay figure? Increments are more relevant now than ever, they are pay rises for lasting a year in a job from which you can't get sacked!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Pensions are income surely?
    if its 'income' fancy paying income tax on it? Was my point


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Increments are not relevant to the question of paycuts. It is necessary to ignore them for clarity in the discussion. Increments may have relevance to an individuals finances but we are discussing the aggregate here.

    True, but the thread and the CSO survey is not about paycuts, it's about the changes in income. Paycuts (negative) and Increments (postive) directly effect income, so they are relevant and are included in the CSO report which we are discussing (and they specificaly note the non inclusion of the "pension" levy) :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    if its 'income' fancy paying income tax on it? Was my point

    No offense, but your point was about somethign that nobody had actually said.. My point which you responded to, was that everyone needed to understand that the PS had taken paycuts subsequent to the CSO survey (which is up to Q3 2009) and therefore should not be used to paint an innacurate picture.. The CSO themselves made note of this of Page 1, so obviously found it important.

    You decided to ignore this.

    (i have no wish to continue an arguement with you, I actually enjoy and agree with the bulk of your posts.. but you seem intent on ignoring any pertinent information in this particular thread, and in fact responded in a somewhat agressive fashion to a simple note...)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    CSO stats are based on the gross earnings i.e before PAYE, levies etc

    Lots of people in the private sector also pay towards their pension. It is a deduction same as the pension levy. Bloody public sector always think they're special and should be treated differently.

    It's like this - your employer runs their pension fund differently. get over it


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    @welease I'm not ignoring you.sorry I'm on phone so hard to type :)
    Anyways I read the bit on gray on cso report. Yes these are before levies but people in private sector also have levies added on and pensions almost fully wiped out

    I have a huge objection to pensions being called 'income'


Advertisement