CSO FLAWED DATA

jakdelad

everyone here runs with some scrap of data the cso churns out
maybe its just me
but has anyone noticed the phoney wage war between the public and private sector
i know public sector workers, bus drivers street sweepers,nurses
and i have seen their payslips and this in no way contrasts to the figures the cso peg out.
the cso seem to deliberatly keep stoking the flames
to keep this triade going
who checks the cso stats???
and have the cso made any errors or blunders they would like to share with us.
everyone seems to be at each others throat
it dosen,t have to be this way

gigino

jakdelad wrote: »

i know public sector workers, bus drivers street sweepers,nurses and i have seen their payslips and this in no way contrasts to the figures the cso peg out.

Do you mean that because they ( the CSO ) are public sector workers themselves, they "massage" the figures in favour of the public service ? A bit like how RTE - a semi public service type organisation - seems to be in favour of the public service / labour party ( eg on the RTE news last night the headline news and the first five minutes was taken up by how one of the poor public service unions was going to go on strike if their low wages were cut again, as they were already on the breadline etc ! ).

I think Jakdelad if you were to look at many private sector workers - the quiet majority who cannot strike - you would find they are worse off than public sector workers.

RichardAnd

I know many civil service workers, my own mother being one and not once have I seen a single pay slip belonging to any of them.

Putting that aside, the CSO may or may not be trust worthy. In this country, as gigino quite rightly points out, we can't even trust our national broadcaster to tell the truth and other elements of the media also reek of sophistry. The doesn't mean the CSO are lying but it does mean one must take their data with a pinch of salt.

jakdelad

gigino wrote: »

Do you mean that because they ( the CSO ) are public sector workers themselves, they "massage" the figures in favour of the public service ? A bit like how RTE - a semi public service type organisation - seems to be in favour of the public service / labour party ( eg on the RTE news last night the headline news and the first five minutes was taken up by how one of the poor public service unions was going to go on strike if their low wages were cut again, as they were already on the breadline etc ! ).

I think Jakdelad if you were to look at many private sector workers - the quiet majority who cannot strike - you would find they are worse off than public sector workers.

what are you saying ??/
there s a competition to see whos the worse off???
is that your benchmark?
can you not see they are trying to distract us from the real issues
they want us fighting each other ,all the time

Gumbo

gigino wrote: »

I think Jakdelad if you were to look at many private sector workers - the quiet majority who cannot strike - you would find they are worse off than public sector workers.

another 100% false and made up post :rolleyes:

i know private sector employees who are considerably better off than public sector employees, and i also know some public employees that are better off than private employees.

the ones that are better off in both sectors tend to be the better educated, more experienced people, although i do have one friend that dropped out of school before his Junior Cert and now has his on city centre business, and another friend that that went straight from Leaving Cert to a retail job, which he is now the store manager which prooves education doesnt mean everything too

gigino

jakdelad wrote: »

what are you saying ??/

Maybe the CSO, being part of the public service, ,and like other public service style organisations like RTE, are sympathetic to the public sector.
The CSO has given figures admitting the public sector is paid much more than the private sector, but they could do it better.

jakdelad

gigino wrote: »

Maybe the CSO, being part of the public service, ,and like other public service style organisations like RTE, are sympathetic to the public sector.
The CSO has given figures admitting the public sector is paid much more than the private sector, but they could do it better.

its not a question of doing it better.
its a question of putting out fair and correct information
the figures can be produced to put forward a paticular slant or view
like the bank regulator of old theres no one policeing the CSO,
its just taken for granted
the CSO SAYS SO so it must be true...
if you want to dispute anything the cso puts out.
how would you go about it, you cant its a closed shop

thebullkf

jakdelad wrote: »

its not a question of doing it better.
its a question of putting out fair and correct information
the figures can be produced to put forward a paticular slant or view
like the bank regulator of old theres no one policeing the CSO,
its just taken for granted
the CSO SAYS SO so it must be true...
if you want to dispute anything the cso puts out.
how would you go about it, you cant its a closed shop

bahahahahhaa!!... christ on a pogo stick.

the CSO... COLLATE DATA!.


did you think they made it up?

pmsl

ressem

jakdelad wrote: »

its not a question of doing it better.
its a question of putting out fair and correct information
the figures can be produced to put forward a paticular slant or view
like the bank regulator of old theres no one policeing the CSO,
its just taken for granted
the CSO SAYS SO so it must be true...
if you want to dispute anything the cso puts out.
how would you go about it, you cant its a closed shop

Care to provide an example of flawed data? As the data is provided by employers, presumably you mean that you disagree with the reports.

The most convenient report on this sub-forum is the
"Public & Private Sector Weekly Earnings Details and Statistics" provided by nesf in the sticky; and I'm going to presume that this is the one that is annoying you.

To which I can suggest that:
1) the various unions, recruitment agencies and employees in the public and private sector would know whether the numbers are in the right ballpark.
2) As nesf points out, the numbers in this report are averages not median values. So they can be 'distorted' by subgroups on greatly more or less than the average. And they are pre-tax and deductions.

However that doesn't mean that the report is flawed, just that the perturbed reader might want to double check before drawing conclusions either way.

jakdelad

ressem wrote: »

Care to provide an example of flawed data? As the data is provided by employers, presumably you mean that you disagree with the reports.

The most convenient report on this sub-forum is the
"Public & Private Sector Weekly Earnings Details and Statistics" provided by nesf in the sticky; and I'm going to presume that this is the one that is annoying you.

To which I can suggest that:
1) the various unions, recruitment agencies and employees in the public and private sector would know whether the numbers are in the right ballpark.
2) As nesf points out, the numbers in this report are averages not median values. So they can be 'distorted' by subgroups on greatly more or less than the average. And they are pre-tax and deductions.

However that doesn't mean that the report is flawed, just that the perturbed reader might want to double check before drawing conclusions either way.

distorted oh right not flawed, distorted interesting?
–adjective DISTORTED
1. not truly or completely representing the facts or reality; misrepresented; false: She has a distorted view of life.
2. twisted; deformed; misshapen.
3. mentally or morally twisted, as with an aberration or bias: He has a distorted sense of values

i go for no 1

Scofflaw

This thread is appalling. I'm not going to bother moving it.

moderately,
Scofflaw