Whats considered a good salary?

Sweetpea101

Overature wrote: »

Starting salery for a teacher now adays is 21K

Where??

somefeen

PS workers are overpaid. Their wages should be brought in line with PS standards. not the other way around. People working for the PS always complain about PS workers and vice versa. But the PS do the majority of the work that keeps the country moving despite earning less than the PS. I wish the PS would **** off and stop dragging the PS down. If your wages need to be cut its because you havent worked hard enough to keep your job. Thats whats wrong with the PS. They want to be just like the PS but the PS is just the PS at the end of the day

munster87

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

munster87 wrote: »

I get paid f##k all, but I don't really care. I get by. Complaining about others won't increase my wage. Some lads on here should really focus on their own lives and not be so bothered by other peoples jobs

I get paid just about or slightly under the average.
And my taxes fund the public sector.
Why should I not ask where my money goes and how it is spent?
Also, "we the people" elect those muppets in power who decide how the money gets spent, so, YES, this is MY money, I should get to decide what is done with it (through my vote) and if I complain the right way, maybe, finally, there will be a slash and burn in the public sector, bringing down their gigantic payroll and therefore maybe even lowering my taxes.
So, to disprove your head in the sand argument, complaining about massive wages in the public sector WILL improve my salary.
Maybe right now we're not complaining the right way, but eventually the people will have to complain by voting in different politicians and if that doesn't work, we'll have to complain with pitchforks and torches and clean out the rat's nest that is Dail Eireann.

Ok Im sure you are right. How long have you been complaining and how is the progress going?

homerjay2005

marketty wrote: »

The best way to look at this is take home pay after tax per week, saying 100k a year means feck all really, with all the levies and increased taxes etc how much more per week does a 100k a year earner get over someone earning 50k?

exactly....people just see the gross as the most important, i see the net box as the key.

i would rather be just under the high level cut off, than over it and paying the majority of it in tax.

and those saying that only high salaries are good salaries are in a dreamworld, anything over 30k is a really decent salary and people can have very comfotable lives on them.

filmbuffboy

It really all depends on the individual.

If you have a huge mortgage, car loan, credit cards, loans etc, 3 kids and a bunch of other stuff you would need 100k a year to live very comfortably.

On the other hand if youre a 25 year old male with no debts or children you could live just as comfrotably as the example above on a fraction of the price.

Its all relative!!!

ToxicPaddy

Deleted User wrote: »

....to whom?

Everyone. They seem to be self serving and playing both sides. On one hand, claiming to represent the PS workers who pay subscriptions to them while on the other same a good number of senior level members are landing cushy numbers on various different boards of quagos everywhere and milking the expenses on top of their already very very generous salaries.

Its just a suggestion.. but every time someone questions a union official about something, their standard response seems to be "I'm only doing it for those I represent", yet many I have spoken too, members of these exact unions I might add, are wondering who exactly they seem to be listening too, because it doesn't seem to be their members.

ToxicPaddy

Odysseus wrote: »

As people whether they like it or not need state services, should we not look at increasing taxes so that both sectors are making more of a contribution, hence also equally effected by the tax increase. Or are people going to make that comment that those of us would work for the state don't really pay tax. It would still mean a reduction in wages for me, as my taxes are stopped out of my wages, and increase the money in the kitty to pay for these services.

I think the main gripe most people have, PS and Private is that they just don't seem to be getting value for money from their tax euros. Yes there are public services that are never going to make money, country bus services, smaller A&E depts etc but they are needed. However, there are lots that can make money if they are implemented and managed properly.

If you look at countries say in Norway or Sweden, they do pay a lot of income tax and things are expensive there, however, the have a very good public transport system, good roads, an excellent heath care system, relatively low crime rates and also things like issues with alcohol resulted in the off licenses being taken over by the Gov and with strict guidelines about what can and cant be sold to try and curb the problem.

In countries like that, people actively see their tax monies being put to work in a proper efficient manner and yes they do complain sometimes but overall a vast majority seem to be happy with the level of service they get.

This is the difference. You cant continue to tax people to the hilt who are struggling to live as it is and give nothing back in return.

Everyday you read about this sector wasting this many millions on that project and that sector canning this project half way through after it over ran by that many millions.

It goes back to the whole accountability thing, nobody appears to suffer after blowing millions on a complete white elephant of a project. If anything, with some senior level execs in the PS, its almost like earning their stripes.

Low level workers in the PS rarely have a say in such high profile projects, yet the chances are they are the ones who get the brunt of the hassle as they are they ones facing the public everyday.

Surely any ordinary level PS worker can relate to this on some level?

Marcusm

Sweetpea101 wrote: »

With the various public sector bashing possibilities I thought I'd give a little insight into my wages as a primary teacher. I work very hard, I love my job, I don't mind paycuts as long as they're fair, I don't just work school hours. Every day I bring home work and I work at least an hour every day after my kids are gone to bed, and at least two hours on the weekend nights. There are some evenings that I work for three or four hours. I work for at least half an hour in the mornings before the kids come into the class.

After my costs of working (childcare and petrol) I take home €176 a week. If I were on the dole I would get more money, and have more time with my small children. I love my job, I do a very good job, I care about the children I teach, I hate this public vs private debate because it's not real, I formally worked in the private sector and I know how hard I worked for my salary back then!! Let the teacher bashing begin!

My family has historically had lots of teachers (grandmother, both parents, lots of aunts/uncles). To be honest, from a distance I think the teacher unions have completely failed the future stock of teachers. During the boomtime, teacher pay increased substnatially ("benchmarking") and now int he downturn, the unions have agreed to screw new entrants (significantly reduced entry salaries, elimination of awards which practically all teachers received) and preserve the status quo for existing members. THis displays a significant lack of solidarity with their brethren (and I am no socialist).

An example, the proposed reduction in teacher/pupil ratios whether by excluding the guidance element or by an absolute change in the ratio. This will impact most significantly on relatively new teachers who do not have contracts of indefinite duration, i.e. those who have parttime hours or temporary wholetime posts. A small across the board reduction would have been more equal and would have upheld the vocational nature of teaching!

sbsquarepants

DaveDaRave wrote: »

188 for a zero hour week

That's pretty close to infinity euro per hour. Nice work if you can get it:D

Morzadec

Living in Spain at the moment and for young people in their twenties, if you are reaching four figures a month you are pretty happy with yourself.

And I'm not talking about menial jobs or retail jobs, this would be for professionals too. You won't find many in their 20s making more than about 1300 a month.

A lot are either unemployed or being exploited in longterm internships where they are perhaps compensated with a few hundred a month.

People here are left speechless and can't comprehend it when I tell them the dole is 800e a month and has no limit

davetherave

Just for ****s and giggles I went and had a look at my payslips over the last year.

For a 32.5 hour weekwork in a large multinational shop starting in T and ending in esco, restocking shelves and other light work I got €312 after deductions.

For a ~66 hour week working for the money grabbing public service "booooo hisss, string 'em up. " digging trenches, fortifying positions, getting rained on, getting shouted at and such I got €327 after deductions.

So yeah.....lets keep bashing the public service.....


Incidentally enough,since all public sector wages are freely available on-line, does anyone from the private side of things want to share how much they are on?

dr.fuzzenstein

Sweetpea101 wrote: »

After my costs of working (childcare and petrol) I take home €176 a week. If I were on the dole I would get more money, and have more time with my small children. I love my job, I do a very good job, I care about the children I teach, I hate this public vs private debate because it's not real, I formally worked in the private sector and I know how hard I worked for my salary back then!! Let the teacher bashing begin!

That's not quite how salaries are calculated!
If I calculated it like that, I can say I take home about 50 squid a week. My fuel costs are in the region of E3.5k (conservative estimate), Mortgage nearly E10k, add electricity and all other bills, I'm barely scraping by.
However, my actual salary is not exactly great, but not exactly bad, it's average.
It's just that I'm struggling due to changed circumstances, but I can't blame my boss for that, I'm just lucky to have a job (vomits).:(

woodoo

Morzadec wrote: »

People here are left speechless and can't comprehend it when I tell them the dole is 800e a month and has no limit

Tell them about some of the consultants calling €250,000 mickey mouse money

Mc1983

Rabies wrote: »

brummytom wrote: »

I do 8 hours a week and get £106.65 (€127.46). That's not bad, is it?

Medical research guinea pig?

LMFAOOOO

Quin_Dub

I posted the below 2 years ago and still thinks it's revelant to the whole "Public Sector" discussion - Which is mostly bulls%&t and vitriol from both sides to be honest...

********************
The fundamental issue in the Public Service is not the individual people, it's the system.

There's no value in demonising individuals because of the system they work in - It achieves nothing.

Bottom line is that the Public Service is currently not delivering value for money - Arguably, it never has, it's just that we can now not afford this lack of value.

Rather than looking at blanket wage cuts/layoffs, what is required is the will to make the changes required to ensure that the PS gives value for the money spent.

Create a true meritocracy where hard work is repaid appropriately. Focus exclusively on cost reductions and efficiencies and reward those that deliver on those aims.

In my company, they annually lay-off the bottom 10% of the workforce based on them not achieving the targets set out for them at the beginning of the year. Those that over achieve on their targets get well rewarded.

What does this do? It makes EVERY single worker focus exclusively on getting their core job done in the most efficient and effective manner and ensures that every year the companies costs come down and profits increase. Those that contribute to those improvements are rewarded, thereby further incentivised to continue to deliver.

Also, as the bottom 10% are culled every year, it means that continuous improvement is essential to stay ahead, both for the company as a whole as well as the individual- As the work that kept you out of the bottom 10% this year will not keep you out next year.

This isn't a "recession" approach; this is standard business practice for the 15+ years I've worked here.

How does this apply to the PS ?- It means we start to get value for money , we get a work-force that are motivated and incentivised to improve and deliver the great services that we need , but also that total costs come down.

Without question there are great people across the PS striving to do their best but they are hamstrung by a system that doesn't allow change and doesn't reward them for being the best at what they do. After a while I've no doubt that one becomes "institutionalised" and you simply slip into mediocrity as there is no value is being better than the next guy.

Let’s fix the system, empower the staff to actually make changes and to be rewarded for doing the right thing.

Long-term that is the only solution.

If we simply cut staff/wages it only fixes it today, but leaves it broken for tomorrow and thereafter.
************************

And to keep the post "on topic" A good salary depends on the individual.. But at the basic level I'd say if you have the ability to put money in the bank to save for Holidays or other "extras" each month after you paid all the bills and put food on the table, then you are doing alright...

Yahew

Is that an American company Quin - I don't think labour laws would allow people to be sacked for normal performance.

Quin_Dub

Yahew wrote: »

Is that an American company Quin - I don't think labour laws would allow people to be sacked for normal performance.

Yes - It is an American company , but here in Ireland.

It's not "Normal performance - It's below expectations , being in the bottom 10% means that you haven't done the job you were expected to do.

Basically , if you are in the bottom 10% you are given a warning and told that your performance is not up to scratch and that you'll be reviewed again in 3 months.

If at that time you are still performing below the expected level you are shown the door.

There is a 5 point scale for the annual review - 5 being top , 1 being bottom

About 5% will get a "5" , about 10% will get "4" , about 65%-70% will get a "3" , 5-10% will get a "2" and the remainder will get the dreaded "1"


People on 4 or 5 score will get a good pay rise and bonus , those getting a 3 will likely get a bonus but no pay rise and those on 1 and 2 will get nothing , with the 1's getting the warning and follow up review as described above.

All of the pay rises/bonus are based on the company hitting it's overall goals btw - I got no payrises at all during 2002 to 2008 as the company were going through a rough patch, but they've been doing well for the last 4 years or so despite the overall economy...

It's harsh ,but it's the way it's always been , the company are very transparent about how the process works and everybody is well informed through the year - In other words , nobody getting a "1" should be surprised, it will have been flagged all year in meetings with their managers etc.

Yahew

ok, as long as they warn people. That system makes sense in some respects, but it doesn't work as a bell shaped curve. There should be the possibility that nobody makes the 1.

Quin_Dub

Yahew wrote: »

ok, as long as they warn people. That system makes sense in some respects, but it doesn't work as a bell shaped curve. There should be the possibility that nobody makes the 1.

I know what you mean , the Bell curve isn't always the best fit , but it is only applied at the high level minimum is about 100 people..

So if you are a manager of a team of 10 or whatever you don't have to force the bell-curve on your team.

dr.fuzzenstein

woodoo wrote: »

Tell them about some of the consultants calling €250,000 mickey mouse money

I just had to quote that one again.
No one single comment bar P. Flynn's "You try keep all that going on 100 grand", has so aptly described the attitude "apres moi le deluge".
Anyone who says that, to me, does not give one single sh*t about the patient, his wellbeing or how to cure him.
Only in the context of "supply product and get payment".
There is no actual care for the patient in a human sense. He/she might as well be a broken appliance.
I know how hated and despised socialism is by the general population, judging on the majority of comments I read on Boards about it, but healthcare, childcare, care for the elderly, the mentally ill, education, housing, should A: Be a universal human right and (most importantly) B: not be a business with the sole aim of profit.

Tom Harward

how about €1k a week would be lovely.

IzzyWizzy

Morzadec wrote: »

Living in Spain at the moment and for young people in their twenties, if you are reaching four figures a month you are pretty happy with yourself.

And I'm not talking about menial jobs or retail jobs, this would be for professionals too. You won't find many in their 20s making more than about 1300 a month.

A lot are either unemployed or being exploited in longterm internships where they are perhaps compensated with a few hundred a month.

People here are left speechless and can't comprehend it when I tell them the dole is 800e a month and has no limit

The cost of living is MUCH lower than Ireland or the UK, though. It must be tough to make 800 a month when you live in Madrid or Barcelona, but in most other places, you can get a nice room for 250/month, travel is cheap and socialising is cheap. Myself and the boyfriend are thinking about moving back to Spain for a while. We were initially put off by the low wages (we'd be making about 1000/month as English teachers), but it's all relative. We'd have much more spare cash earning that and renting a double room for 200 euro than we have here in London earning about 1300 after tax and paying ridiculous amounts for rent and transport.

InReality

gigino wrote: »

I do not believe that. I am sure some people on the payroll get less than 75k a year. Cleaner, secretary, canteen staff, warehouse operative or whatever. I know someone in a large American multinational here in Ireland, he is with them 15 years, has a relevant third level qualification and is on less than 39k. Works a 37.5 hour week. Shorter holidays than you get. And constant pressure. Not a union member. Sometimes does an extra bit of overtime free just to get something finished.

I cannot believe a company would operate in an IMF bailed out country , and pay their lowest paid employee 75k a year plus vhi,bonus etc. Bear in mind average public sector salary is 21.5k a year in the UK, and many in the UK think that is too high over there. Its a G7 country, a major industrialised country, and why would wages in a rescued little IMF basket case be so much more ?

Why do you think the IMF has a bearing on how much a company pays anyone ?

alphanine

€30k is an excellent salary if you are not overstretched financially with debt.

woodoo

Yahew wrote: »

ok, as long as they warn people. That system makes sense in some respects, but it doesn't work as a bell shaped curve. There should be the possibility that nobody makes the 1.

Thats true. And what if everyone hits their targets does nobody get sacked.

twowheelsonly

Freddie59 wrote: »

No-one will dispute that there are higher salaries. But those salaries are not funded by the taxpayer. I ask again: do you think it is fair that the rest of us pay more tax in order for the government to make up the difference in your salary (e.g. what it can actually afford versus what it can afford+the money it has to borrow to make up the difference)?

If a private sector company was in this state, there would be wage reductions and redundancies in order to bring costs into line. Something which the state, its employees, and banks appear to be immune to.

Wage cuts - Done. (And Pension Levies Applied - whole new argument..) Redundancies - Done, albeit on a small scale but the massive retirements coupled with a recruitment moratorium more than balance that out.

Freddie59 wrote: »

1. It appeared to be OK for the past few years for the Public Sector wage to outstrip the Private Sector wage. Why not the other way round? In SOME, but not ALL areas...

2. Deine 'in line with their qualifications'. In Germany the max a consultant earns is €96 PA. Here? Average €250k PA, with some earning in excess of €500k. And that continues on down the line.

The reason we have an €18Bn deficit is precisely BECAUSE the public sector is not run like the private sector: efficiently and with a basis in fiscal reality.

Artificially high is what they are kept at. Not some myth. One day that 400m being borrowed every week will come to a halt. And it's approaching fast.

Again a Public Service comparison but no Private Service comparison..

gigino wrote: »

I know a few people in England doing hard work in skilled jobs for well less than 20 grand a year, and they are absolutely gobsmacked when you tell them average public service pay is 48k here ( it was almost 50k ). They complain that public servants in England get an average 21.5k a year stg.
Remember the teacher on RTE radio about 6 months ago (an Irish person now working as a teacher in England ) highlighting the huge difference between pay levels in UK and here.

And again..... What do your friends work at and, if in Private Sector, how much would their skills here earn? (Presuming full employment)

davetherave wrote: »

Just for ****s and giggles I went and had a look at my payslips over the last year.

For a 32.5 hour weekwork in a large multinational shop starting in T and ending in esco, restocking shelves and other light work I got €312 after deductions.

For a ~66 hour week working for the money grabbing public service "booooo hisss, string 'em up. " digging trenches, fortifying positions, getting rained on, getting shouted at and such I got €327 after deductions.

So yeah.....lets keep bashing the public service.....


Incidentally enough,since all public sector wages are freely available on-line, does anyone from the private side of things want to share how much they are on?

Apparently not... I keep asking and nobody wants to reply


BTW, I see waste in my area of work on a fairly regular basis - as I'm sure do most PS workers. IMO this is where the problem lies. The issues and decisions causing the most waste are made at a top level far away from the minions on the front-line who have to take the brunt of the criticism.
Another thing is the job that I'm in is far removed from the job that I joined. The Pay and Conditions have in real terms decreased enormously and the restructuring that has gone on is huge - some good some bad.
Done just presume that there's nothing being done because there is - a huge amount.

Small Case - A guy I know works in the 'Back Office' in the Dole Office in Cork. For years he had one 'in' and one 'out' tray on his desk. He now has at least seven of each. They haven't had a new staff member for years, have lost quite a few to retirements and transfers and yet their work load has exploded. And then they have to listen to nothing but criticism.... Think about it.

ToxicPaddy

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

Everyone.

Why? For example, I'm not a member of a teacher union, or the INMO, or IMPACT. I don't pay them a membership fee and I don't go to their meetings. Why on Earth should they give a monkey's what I think?

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

claiming to represent the PS workers who pay subscriptions to them while on the other same a good number of senior level members are landing cushy numbers on various different boards of quagos everywhere and milking the expenses on top of their already very very generous salaries.

Does that mean they should quit the boards, pull out of Croke Park, and shut schools and hospitals down until they get bigger pay increases for their members?

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

yet many I have spoken too, members of these exact unions I might add, are wondering who exactly they seem to be listening too, because it doesn't seem to be their members.

What do they want? More pay cuts? Higher taxes? Hampers and roses on Valentine's Day?

Uriel.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's not quite how salaries are calculated!
If I calculated it like that, I can say I take home about 50 squid a week. My fuel costs are in the region of E3.5k (conservative estimate), Mortgage nearly E10k, add electricity and all other bills, I'm barely scraping by.
However, my actual salary is not exactly great, but not exactly bad, it's average.
It's just that I'm struggling due to changed circumstances, but I can't blame my boss for that, I'm just lucky to have a job (vomits).:(

that's not what she said.
Mortgage and bills were not part o here calculations as far as I could see. Her point was the comparison of the cost of work versus the monetary benefit from same.

If she did not go to work her fuel costs would be down and so would her childcare costs. It's completely different to what you describe.

RXMPS

filmbuffboy wrote: »

It really all depends on the individual.

If you have a huge mortgage, car loan, credit cards, loans etc, 3 kids and a bunch of other stuff you would need 100k a year to live very comfortably.

On the other hand if youre a 25 year old male with no debts or children you could live just as comfrotably as the example above on a fraction of the price.

Its all relative!!!

That's a very privileged life.

They are living the dream life in fairness.

100k a year, that's class.

Who wouldn't want a few kids, few cars, huge house, private health insurance, great pension plan, top food and clothes, credit cards etc?

I am 26 earned 32k last year according to my p60 i got last week and I don't own anything besides my car which I payed 5k for, which took a year to spare.

I don't even own a TV, landlords:D, I rent, pay for bins, broadband, electric, car maintenance, feed and cloth myself, that's all my bills.

I could never afford a house, a car loan, credit cards, kids, holidays etc on my salary which is grand for now and keeps a roof over my head.

If you get a 100k you can't complain.

After all taxes taken out, you are still taking home around 70k net a year.That is serious money.

You have to either useless with money or just greedy, to loose yourself on that.

If someone is struggling on 100k gross, then they only have themselves to blame.

Gran Hermano

RXMPS wrote: »

That's a very privileged life

If you get a 100k you can't complain.

After all taxes taken out, you are still taking home around 70k net a year.That is serious money.

.

You really think that someone on 100k only pays 30k tax ???