Survey reveals a 44% pay gap between public and private sector

SBWife

martingriff wrote: »

I have no problem with having only 1 pay level.

How about we set that pay level at the minimum increment?

the_syco

martingriff wrote: »

Are you really saying it was the public sectors fault there was no proper regulation the ones who do that is called the goverment and its the top civil servants who have those cosy contracts

Ah, here's me thinking that the Department of Finance was a public sector body, as opposed to a private sector company... :pac:

Itchianus

SBWife wrote: »

How about we set that pay level at the minimum increment?

Yes, what do you think would happen then?

fliball123

Degsy wrote: »

Its always IT people who complain about public sector pay and the reason is this....they're scared shiitless of an increase in corporation tax and a consequent exporting of thier jobs overseas to cheaper countries.

I FOR ONE WILL NOT BE SORRY TO SEE THEM GO..THE it SECTOR HAS SPAWNED UNBELEIVABLE ARROGANCE,GREED AND STUPIDITY.

So Degsy do you want to be the pot or kettle in that statement there kid

SBWife

Itchianus wrote: »

Yes, what do you think would happen then?

There'd be many more public servants crying on boards?

Itchianus

SBWife wrote: »

There'd be many more public servants crying on boards?

So constructive!

Seriously, what do you think would happen?

Bearing in mind that 3/4 of people are at the top of their scale, could you just elaborate on what you're proposing to do?

I've tried to make reasoned argument and suggestions on here, but it seems like some people just want to stick the knife in.

I'm starting to understand the "Here we go again" posts at the start of this thread...

SBWife

I'd say we'd easily get the 30%+ reduction in numbers that are needed, more from the higher end of the scale than the lower. There might then be the opportunity to put in place a more merit based system and do a full root and branch review of the main areas of the public service.

Itchianus

SBWife wrote: »

I'd say we'd easily get the 30%+ reduction in numbers that are needed, more from the higher end of the scale than the lower. There might then be the opportunity to put in place a more merit based system and do a full root and branch review of the main areas of the public service.

And long term?

You think people will want to spend their 40+ years "career" working for the same wage (bearing in mind before you mention promotion that top-heaviness is one reason for size of the PS cost).

You think you'll get intelligent people to work as Revenue auditors, social welfare inspectors, Gardaí, or other such popular jobs for their whole lives at the entry level pay, regardless of whether they are the best or the worst at the job? Do you honestly, genuinely believe such a policy would result in a better Public Service?

Oh but wait, a merit based system? Some sort of system whereby people get paid more according as they get better at their job? Hmmmm, I'm not sure you've read all my posts... Like maybe the one where I used the word meritocracy about half a dozen times...

murphaph

Itchianus wrote: »

Yes, what do you think would happen then?

People would strive to gain their pay rises? The talented workers should reach the old top increment level faster (and indeed in some cases exceed it!) and the dead wood should remain on the bottom rung.

murphaph

Itchianus wrote: »

So constructive!

Seriously, what do you think would happen?

Bearing in mind that 3/4 of people are at the top of their scale, could you just elaborate on what you're proposing to do?

I've tried to make reasoned argument and suggestions on here, but it seems like some people just want to stick the knife in.

I'm starting to understand the "Here we go again" posts at the start of this thread...

I'm sorry, but your entire argument is based on the fact that 3/4 of the PS are on the top of their pay scale. This is NO REASON not to change the system for the future. It is in fact a very good reason to change it!

SBWife

I never said promotion would not be available did I?

Automatic pay increases for doing an average or below average job is what I'm talking about getting rid of - you said yourself it's very difficult to get a review score that makes one ineligible for an increment.

And yes there will be some who will work their entire career for essentially the same wage because they're lazy or happy where they are or just basically couldn't be arsed. But is that not better than the current system where the lazy, happy couldn't be arsed get 7 or 13 or whatever the number of pay rises it is for just showing up?

Itchianus

murphaph wrote: »

People would strive to gain their pay rises? The talented workers should reach the old top increment level faster (and indeed in some cases exceed it!) and the dead wood should remain on the bottom rung.

This post makes no sense. SBwife had suggested that there would be no increments and the pay of every grade would be reduced to the minimum point on the scale.

OMD

bobbysands81 wrote: »

[

As for how my take home pay is down 20-25% - it's simple mate. I don't have the exact figures in front of me but both the pension levy and wage cut each took about 7.5% off my wages. That's my wages -15/16% Factor in tax increases and that brings my reduction in take home pay to above

OK. so you are in the minority of public sector workers who have had no increments in the last 3 years however most have and the effects of them at this stage will more than negate the effects of the paycut.

Also 7.5 + 7.5 is 15 not 15/16

If the pension levy & pay cuts combined have cut your pay by a total of 15/16% that means you were earning about €90,000. it would seem fair to most people that high earners like yourself pay more. If you are going to rant that you earn nowhere near 90K then your pay was cut nowhere near 15/16%.

Anyway 15/16% is nowhere near the 20-25% you claimed.

OMD

Itchianus wrote: »

SBWife wrote: »

There'd be many more public servants crying on boards?

So constructive!

Seriously, what do you think would happen?

Bearing in mind that 3/4 of people are at the top of their scale, could you just elaborate on what you're proposing to do?

...

3/4 are not at top of their pay scale

Itchianus

SBWife wrote: »

I never said promotion would not be available did I?

Automatic pay increases for doing an average or below average job is what I'm talking about getting rid of - you said yourself it's very difficult to get a review score that makes one ineligible for an increment.

And yes there will be some who will work there entire career for essentially the same wage because they're lazy or happy where they are or just basically couldn't be arsed. But is that not better than the current system where the lazy, happy couldn't be arsed get 7 or 13 or whatever the number of pay rises it is for just showing up?

No, you didn't say promotion wouldn't be available, my point is that to avoid a bloated, top-heavy or middle-heavy Public Sector you can't just promote people because they've been there a long time! I'm sure we can agree on that.

What you go on to say above essentially agrees with my own sentiment. You hardly think I'm happy if the lazy sh1te across from me continues to get the same increment as me every year even though I'm breaking my arse...

But you appear to have essentially done a bit of an ideological u-turn now. All the way along you've been totally anti-increment. I've been saying all along that increments are necessary to ensure performance and should be given based on performance.

So it appears we agree with each other after all!

SBWife

Actually FYI two cuts of 7.5% come out to a reduction of 14.4%. They're not additive.

SBWife

Itchianus wrote: »

No, you didn't say promotion wouldn't be available, my point is that to avoid a bloated, top-heavy or middle-heavy Public Sector you can't just promote people because they've been there a long time! I'm sure we can agree on that.

What you go on to say above essentially agrees with my own sentiment. You hardly think I'm happy if the lazy sh1te across from me continues to get the same increment as me every year even though I'm breaking my arse...

But you appear to have essentially done a bit of an ideological u-turn now. All the way along you've been totally anti-increment. I've been saying all along that increments are necessary to ensure performance and should be given based on performance.

So it appears we agree with each other after all!

I'd completely anti-increment, increasing pay for seniority based on showing up and doing an average or below average job - that's what increments are.

OMD

SBWife wrote: »

Actually FYI two cuts of 7.5% come out to a reduction of 14.4%. They're not additive.

Also if pension levy was 7.5% then the paycut was not 7.5%

Itchianus

OMD wrote: »

3/4 are not at top of their pay scale

Thanks.

Does anyone know the correct figure I wonder...

Anecdotally, from the office I work in, 3/4 seems right, if not higher, but the age profile is quite old there, so could well be lower overall.

I didn't pull the 3/4 thing out of my hat though, I'm just re-quoting someone else's misinformation!

Itchianus

SBWife wrote: »

I'd completely anti-increment, increasing pay for seniority based on showing up and doing an average or below average job - that's what increments are.

No they're not (in theory at least!).

And isn't that the point, the system is there in place, the annual performance review process actually does happen. There just isn't the will for change to actually operate the system as it should be operated.

What you are proposing, pay increases based only on performance, is there already, so what is needed is a change in managerial attitude, nothing more.

SBWife

Itchianus wrote: »

No they're not (in theory at least!).

And isn't that the point, the system is there in place, the annual performance review process actually does happen. There just isn't the will for change to actually operate the system as it should be operated.

What you are proposing, pay increases based only on performance, is there already, so what is needed is a change in managerial attitude, nothing more.

Sorry but last time I checked I didn't live in theoretical world, pay rises are given for average and below average performance they are called increments, as long as this is the case the system will be inherently flawed. You can't wake up in the morning and tell an institution we are going to continue to have the same system except now we're actually going to operate it as it should be operated. Institutional change doesn't work like that.

cursai

This is gas! Like monkeys in a cage fighting over whos banana is better....
Fighting amongst ourselves as Property speculators are set to earn a profit from the sale of their redundant assets from NAMA!
But is this true either....its from the indo our main reliable source of news.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/so-it-was-a-builders-bailout-after-all-2835970.html

Alison O Riordan is writing under a pseudo name me thinks!:)

Itchianus

SBWife wrote: »

Sorry but last time I checked I didn't live in theoretical world, pay rises are given for average and below average performance they are called increments, as long as this is the case the system will be inherently flawed. You can't wake up in the morning and tell an institution we are going to continue to have the same system except now we're actually going to operate it as it should be operated. Institutional change doesn't work like that.

But that's what you're proposing.

Like, either there's increments based on performance, or there isn't. If there is, then can you describe how your system will differ from the behemoth that currently exists.

If there isn't, then good luck trying to hire and retain a productive workforce, but that's not the argument we're having right now (yet, but I'm sure you'll find fault with this as well).

Welease

Itchianus wrote: »

But that's what you're proposing.

Like, either there's increments based on performance, or there isn't. If there is, then can you describe how your system will differ from the behemoth that currently exists.

If there isn't, then good luck trying to hire and retain a productive workforce, but that's not the argument we're having right now (yet, but I'm sure you'll find fault with this as well).

The problem is.. as you yourself have said.. pretty much everyone who is entitled to get an increment gets it.. therefore the reality is there isn't really a performance based system in place..

There are many different options available, one example would be the use of a pot of money made available to managers based on the size of their team.. That value of that pot would depend on how much the PS was willing to increase salaries in any given year, and could be dependant on which department or sector the employee was in..

For example sake.. lets say that it was decided that the average rate was a 3% raise..

The top 10% of employees under that manager would be given raises of the order of 4-7%..
The middle 80% given between 1-4%
The lowest performing 10% would be given 0%..

The total amount and percentages have to be kept within the overall bucket assigned to that manager..

A simple system that is used globally.. easy to administer, easy to control costs and most importantly it rewards those who give the most value...

Itchianus

Welease wrote: »

The problem is.. as you yourself have said.. pretty much everyone who is entitled to get an increment gets it.. therefore the reality is there isn't really a performance based system in place..

There are many different options available, one example would be the use of a pot of money made available to managers based on the size of their team.. That value of that pot would depend on how much the PS was willing to increase salaries in any given year, and could be dependant on which department or sector the employee was in..

For example sake.. lets say that it was decided that the average rate was a 3% raise..

The top 10% of employees under that manager would be given raises of the order of 4-7%..
The middle 80% given between 1-4%
The lowest performing 10% would be given 0%..

The total amount and percentages have to be kept within the overall bucket assigned to that manager..

A simple system that is used globally.. easy to administer, easy to control costs and most importantly it rewards those who give the most value...

That does sound very reasonable, but means 90% will still get a pay increase / increment, and I have a feeling that's not going to appease the masses here...

Vizzy

Welease wrote: »

The problem is.. as you yourself have said.. pretty much everyone who is entitled to get an increment gets it.. therefore the reality is there isn't really a performance based system in place..

There are many different options available, one example would be the use of a pot of money made available to managers based on the size of their team.. That value of that pot would depend on how much the PS was willing to increase salaries in any given year, and could be dependant on which department or sector the employee was in..

For example sake.. lets say that it was decided that the average rate was a 3% raise..

The top 10% of employees under that manager would be given raises of the order of 4-7%..
The middle 80% given between 1-4%
The lowest performing 10% would be given 0%..

The total amount and percentages have to be kept within the overall bucket assigned to that manager..

A simple system that is used globally.. easy to administer, easy to control costs and most importantly it rewards those who give the most value...

Are you alright for a cup a tae there boss or maybe you'd like something more ?:)

Welease

Itchianus wrote: »

That does sound very reasonable, but means 90% will still get a pay increase / increment, and I have a feeling that's not going to appease the masses here...

Well the levels are set depending on the funds available and other market factors.. and the bands can be adjusted to reflect those conditions..

For example, this year I know of large multi nationals who sets the bands at 0 across the site... (Intel being one).. With only promotions getting rises. The expectation is that next year they will reset the levels and bands consistant with their salary plans going forward.

The point is.. if you are going to spend 250 million on salary increases, then why not give the lions share to those who have earned it.. Over time that tends to either weed out the low performers, and make them review their performance and adjust accordingly.

Welease

Vizzy wrote: »

Are you alright for a cup a tae there boss or maybe you'd like something more ?:)

Tea? Tea is for union reps..

Us upper-lower-middle-management types drink latte's....

Vizzy

Welease wrote: »

Tea? Tea is for union reps..

Us upper-lower-middle-management types drink latte's....

Us middle-upper management drink Gin n Tonic,now run along like a good boy and get me one or there will be no increment for you.






Oh and collect my dry cleaning as well

Itchianus

Welease wrote: »

The point is.. if you are going to spend 250 million on salary increases, then why not give the lions share to those who have earned it.. Over time that tends to either weed out the low performers, and make them review their performance and adjust accordingly.

It's like you read my mind! Clearly that makes more sense.

Unfortunately the argument has to rumble on though... I was hired, and took my job, based on the fact that subject to performance, my salary will, over a few years, catch up to some extent with what I could earn in the private sector. If your model replaced the current structure, how do I know I'm not going to get screwed over, in the absence of a defined pay structure...