CSO report on public-private pay gap

Geuze

CSO study of the pay gap published today:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2010/nes_0910supp.pdf


Press release:

http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleasenationalemploymentsurvey2009and2010supplementaryanalysis/


Main findings:

Overall, the summary results show that, on average, public sector employees had higher educational attainment, longer service, were older, and were more likely to be in professional jobs than their counterparts in the private sector.

• The multivariate analysis provided a range of estimates of the public/private pay gap. The range of estimates provided reflect the fact that there is no unanimity in the international literature regarding the most appropriate model/parameters to use and as such no single best measure exists and to present one would be subjective and prone to over simplification. The pay gap estimates ranged from 6.1% to 18.9% for NES 2010 and all estimates showed a reduction in the pay gap between 2009 and 2010.

People often mention a 50% pay premium, which is clearly wrong. Now we know that it's more like 6-18%, depending how it's measured.

NB: the analysis does not take into account the second PS pay cut (PRD). This was about 6-8%.

So the pay premium is now about 0-10%.

Geuze

The study also finds that the pay premium is higher at lower wage levels.

It's lower, or negative, at higher wage levels.

Sleepy

Since those on higher wage levels are the more senior staff who are likely to be compared to directors, senior managers etc. in the private sector where anything other than good performance results in a P45 pretty quickly and potential rewards have no ceiling, it's not surprising that, for example a City or Council Manager would be paid less than the MD of a private company of commensurate size to that council: he or she has far more job security and there's zero capacity for outliers who get paid massive salaries based on superstar performance.

A few interesting aspects to the study:

The "CSO has agreed a ‘notional’ contracted hours with employers or representative bodies" - given that labour laws explicitly forbid the kind of hours actually worked by many in the private legal, financial and IT sectors, this will lead to an under-reporting of those notional contracted hours. Average working hours are reported as 31 hours in the PS, 32.7 in the private sector

Higher educational attainment is a given in any comparison as most low-skilled positions are private sector. Even in professional positions, the Public Sector has, in my experience, been far more supportive of employees gaining certification for skills. Maybe it's just in IT but in the private sector, employees pick up skills on the job and certify them on their own time and at their own expense, PS workers tend to be able to attend courses during work hours and at the state's expense.

Length of service is not necessarily a positive attribute in a sector where pay is based on length of service rather than performance. Yes, experience accumulates over time but so too does the cost of the employee: and with no regard for their productivity.

There's a definite gender issue at play:

the public sector pay gap ranged from 2.3% to 14.5% for males and for females it ranged from 9.2% to 20.4% in 2010.

Does time spent on maternity / parental leave qualify for increments? If so, this could be a large factor here as in private industry, the fact a person has been out of work for an extended period of time would be reflected in their salary: i.e. they wouldn't get paid for experience they don't have.

Perhaps it's also a case that more flexible work arrangements incur a greater drop in salary in the private sector? Job-sharing and term-time working is far less common outside of the public sector and maybe the salaries enjoyed by these workers don't account for these benefits enough?

The trade union membership statistics are definitely worth pointing out: 70.4% membership in PS versus 19.2% in private sector. Especially interesting when certain sectors of the PS are explicitly forbidden from engaging in union activities (e.g. GRA)

The overall summaries for 2010 (admittedly stupidly simplistic) still show an extraordinarily high premium iun the hourly earnings:

The corresponding pay gap for hourly earnings was 41.9% with hourly earnings in the public sector at €27.38 compared to private sector earnings of €19.30.

Looking at figure 1.13 we can still see that the median value for weekly earnings in the private sector was €573.18 per week, compared with a value of €798.55 in the public sector: a 28% margin. Taking this to hourly earnings, we get a PS figure of €23.56 versus private sector of €15.82, a 33% margin.

Some of the limitations bear keeping in mind too:

This analysis did not attempt to match individuals across the two sectors, or to control for differences in job “types”
etc. between the sectors.

Weekly earnings, as mentioned earlier, are gross earnings and only include normal wages, salaries and overtime,
taxable allowances, regular bonuses and commissions, holiday and sick pay. This analysis does not take into account
or make any allowances for benefit in kind, irregular bonuses and commissions, employer’s PRSI, employer’s
pension contributions, redundancy payments or back pay.

The first is what we really should be striving to find in order to continue with bench-marking. Admittedly it's not possible in all professions but I'd have thought that enough PS workers should be in comparable positions to private workers that an average of their differentials could be used for calculating the salary adjustments necessary for those incomparable positions e.g. Gardaí, Prison Wardens, Soliders etc.

The elements left out of the weekly earnings would be skewed both ways: lack of accounting for the PRD and non inclusion of irregular bonuses biases the data in favour of Private Sector whilst lack of accounting for pension entitlements biases heavily in favour of Public Sector.

The report, while interesting, is certainly not good enough to base policy upon. Wage gaps need to be tackled at a much more granular level: comparing positions with those that are genuinely equivalent between the sectors and accounting for pension entitlements, job security and working arrangements etc.

An across the board cut would be mercilessly unfair but in order to implement necessary cuts to payroll, the unions need to get out of the way and allow for real management. I can't see it happening though so if (when?) another across the board cut is applied, I'll save my sympathy for those non-union members who are being cut unfairly. The rest I'll look upon as reaping the harvest of their own actions.

Head The Wall

Your median figure is wrong, it's 38.7% not 28%

Chris_5339762

Sleepy wrote: »

The "CSO has agreed a ‘notional’ contracted hours with employers or representative bodies" - given that labour laws explicitly forbid the kind of hours actually worked by many in the private legal, financial and IT sectors, this will lead to an under-reporting of those notional contracted hours. Average working hours are reported as 31 hours in the PS, 32.7 in the private sector

I would add to that the public sector junior docs, registrars, etc etc who are similarly working absolutely ridiculous hours that are expressly forbidden under the working time directives. eg: Surgery trainees doing up to 120 hours per week and not getting a bit of overtime for any of it over their standard 35,37 or whatever contract.

31 hours does seem quite low though. Most contracts that I'm aware of are 35 hours over 7 days, 8am - 8pm rostering. If the AVERAGE is 31, what have they included? Are part timers thrown into that average? Are there people on ridiculously short contracts?

OMD

Geuze wrote: »

CSO study of the pay gap published today:


NB: the analysis does not take into account the second PS pay cut (PRD). This was about 6-8%.

So the pay premium is now about 0-10%.

And how did they address private sector pension contributions.

Geuze

Note that most PS pay a pension cont, plus the recent PRD. So, overall, the normal pension cont plus the PRD exceeds the typical cont of a non PS.

Head The Wall

Well, obviously they didn't and don't forget the private sector pension levy as well.

It's good to see that they actually Gross wages for proper comparisons, so many PS posters here use net figures.

Head The Wall

Geuze wrote: »

Note that most PS pay a pension cont, plus the recent PRD. So, overall, the normal pension cont plus the PRD exceeds the typical cont of a non PS.

That's not really relevant though, it has been left out so a proper comparison can be made against Private sector wages.

Riskymove

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Are part timers thrown into that average? Are there people on ridiculously short contracts?

ALL PS are included so yes, all sorts of part time and contract work included

OMD

Geuze wrote: »

Note that most PS pay a pension cont, plus the recent PRD. So, overall, the normal pension cont plus the PRD exceeds the typical cont of a non PS.

But if the private sector worker wanted to get the same pension entitlements, ie pension of 1/80 final salary (remember final salary) per year worked and 3/80 final salary X years worked lump sum. Plus a pension for his wife and kids. How much would he have to pay?

While you are at it how much extra would he have to pay into a permanent health insurance plan to get the same sick leave benefits as a PS worker.

Oh yeah and how much extra to get the equivalent of the in service death benefit?

Oh one final thing. Does pay include allowances?

Gumbo

OMD wrote: »

But if the private sector worker wanted to get the same pension entitlements, ie pension of 1/80 final salary (remember final salary) per year worked and 3/80 final salary X years worked lump sum. Plus a pension for his wife and kids. How much would he have to pay?

While you are at it how much extra would he have to pay into a permanent health insurance plan to get the same sick leave benefits as a PS worker.

Oh yeah and how much extra to get the equivalent of the in service death benefit?

Oh one final thing. Does pay include allowances?

There ya go, knock yourself out : http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Pensions_Calculators/

OMD

kceire wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

But if the private sector worker wanted to get the same pension entitlements, ie pension of 1/80 final salary (remember final salary) per year worked and 3/80 final salary X years worked lump sum. Plus a pension for his wife and kids. How much would he have to pay?

While you are at it how much extra would he have to pay into a permanent health insurance plan to get the same sick leave benefits as a PS worker.

Oh yeah and how much extra to get the equivalent of the in service death benefit?

Oh one final thing. Does pay include allowances?

There ya go, knock yourself out : http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Pensions_Calculators/

That doesn't calculate final salary pension. It doesn't calculate tax free lump sum. Obviously it doesn't answer my other questions either.

What was the point of the link?

Kristopherus

A PS does not get a pension for his wife & kids. His widow will get a pension of max 50% of his pension. That 50% will, in most cases, be less than the current widows pension. A PS would have to have a final salary of c.€48000.00 in order for his widow to have a pension in excess of what she would get from the state.The vast majority of PS have a salary of less than €50.000.00.

Gumbo

OMD wrote: »

That doesn't calculate final salary pension. What

Yes it does :

** Target Pension as % of Pre-Retirement Salary

Just select 50%

It also allows for 50% spouse pension :

Allow for 50% spouse's pension on death?

Kristopherus wrote: »

A PS does not get a pension for his wife & kids. His widow will get a pension of max 50% of his pension. That 50% will, in most cases, be less than the current widows pension. A PS would have to have a final salary of c.€48000.00 in order for his widow to have a pension in excess of what she would get from the state.

+1

But some posters up above would make out that PS people pay no pension contribution, no pension levy, and would make it seem that PS get their own pension, and pensions for their wives and kids.......

OMD

Kristopherus wrote: »

A PS does not get a pension for his wife & kids. His widow will get a pension of max 50% of his pension. That 50% will, in most cases, be less than the current widows pension. A PS would have to have a final salary of c.€48000.00 in order for his widow to have a pension in excess of what she would get from the state.The vast majority of PS have a salary of less than €50.000.00.

Are you saying the vast majority of PS workers do not have a final salary of less than €50,000? Please provide proof. The average salary is above 40k so common sense dictates final salary will be above 50k. It is final salary that counts

Just thinking about this again. Are you saying the state old age pension is €24,000 a year?

OMD

kceire wrote: »

Yes it does :

No it doesn't. How the hell can it? The vast majority of people today have no idea what their final salary will be. It doesn't allow for a tax free lump sum on retirement. It cannot calculate spouses pension as it cannot allow for final salary. And it cannot assess my other questions either. So will you answer the questions or just post other pointless links

ardmacha

NB: the analysis does not take into account the second PS pay cut (PRD). This was about 6-8%.

So the pay premium is now about 0-10%.

Or rather was in 2010. Over the life of the CPA private pay will increase moderately and so the gap will end up as -5% - +5%.

Gumbo

OMD wrote: »

No it doesn't. How the hell can it? The vast majority of people today have no idea what their final salary will be. It doesn't allow for a tax free lump sum on retirement. It cannot calculate spouses pension as it cannot allow for final salary. And it cannot assess my other questions either. So will you answer the questions or just post other pointless links

Doesn't suit your argument ehh
If you don't wana use the link, then don't.

Try remain calm, don't want to have you to endure a visit to a PS hospital with high blood pressure now do we

Head The Wall

kceire wrote: »

There ya go, knock yourself out : http://www.pensionsboard.ie/en/Pensions_Calculators/

It's a rhetorical question(statement). The amount of the pension contributions is irrelevant as it isn't taken into account for public or private.

OMD

kceire wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

No it doesn't. How the hell can it? The vast majority of people today have no idea what their final salary will be. It doesn't allow for a tax free lump sum on retirement. It cannot calculate spouses pension as it cannot allow for final salary. And it cannot assess my other questions either. So will you answer the questions or just post other pointless links

Doesn't suit your argument ehh
If you don't wana use the link, then don't.

Try remain calm, don't want to have you to endure a visit to a PS hospital with high blood pressure now do we

Do you understand PS pensions?
Do you think the pension board link can calculate the equivalent of a PS pension?
If you do then you seriously do not understand pensions.
From your comments I presume you cannot/will not answer the previous questions

woodoo

I'm glad i'm never going to have to see that ridiculous 50% figure anymore. I knew all along it was tripe.

Next false fact up to be torn down is the 70% to 80% of the health budget is on wages.

Slowly but surely a mockery will be made of all the Sunday Indo type lies and spin.

Vizzy

woodoo wrote: »

I'm glad i'm never going to have to see that ridiculous 50% figure anymore. I knew all along it was tripe.

Next false fact up to be torn down is the 70% to 80% of the health budget is on wages.

Slowly but surely a mockery will be made of all the Sunday Indo type lies and spin.

And what is more comical is that if you look at posts on Boards about 12 months ago they speak of a differential of 45% but over the last month or so this has been widened to 50%.
Now it appears that the actual difference is closer to 10%.
But don't let that get in the way of a good PS bashing argument.

woodoo

Vizzy wrote: »

And what is more comical is that if you look at posts on Boards about 12 months ago they speak of a differential of 45% but over the last month or so this has been widened to 50%.
Now it appears that the actual difference is closer to 10%.
But don't let that get in the way of a good PS bashing argument.

I'm glad that CSO data was released. It shows that much of what we have been reading over the past few years in the media and on places like boards.ie, politics.ie etc have been wrong.

At a quick glace over that report it looks like the PS is paid about 10 to 15% more than the private sector. But this seems to be due to the higher education achieved by PS workers, a higher number of professional qualifications in the PS. And most worryingly of all the private sector seems to be stuck in the last century in terms of sexism and low pay for women.

cosbloodymick

The elephant in the room is the state pension of circa 12k per annum that public sector workers are not entitled to. This pension is paid to all citizens of this state bar public sector workers (the non contributary pension is slightly less) whether they have worked or not. So this figure should be subtracted from any calculation of the value of a public sector pension.
For example if a public sector worker retires on a salary of 36000 his/her pension would be 18000 per annum. 18000 - 12000 = 6000.
For this 6000 per annum the public sector worker has to contribute at least 15% of salary for 40 years. That would be equal to 5400 x 40 = 216000.
If a person paid 216000 into a private pension fund you would expect a return of 11000 per annum. yet in effect the public sector worker only gets 6000. No wonder some public sector workers want to opt out of the pension scheme but unfortunately cannot. Its compulsory!

ardmacha

So this figure should be subtracted from any calculation of the value of a public sector pension.

But if people starting doing calculations like this it would derail entire threads!

Godge

OMD wrote: »

Do you understand PS pensions?
Do you think the pension board link can calculate the equivalent of a PS pension?
If you do then you seriously do not understand pensions.
From your comments I presume you cannot/will not answer the previous questions

I don't think you understand pensions either. Public servants have a new pension scheme. Have a read of the Trident report on this site.

http://www.into.ie/pensions/

I know it is a union report but since the report was commissioned there have been further cuts in pay for new teachers.

some interesting quotes in relation to the new scheme

"15) We have tested the new proposals across various scenarios and the following

profiles are among those which would pay more in than they would get out of

the new scheme:

a) age 21 joiner, no promotion, unbroken service;

b) age 21 joiner, Special Duties post at age 40, unbroken service;

c) age 25 joiner, no promotion, unbroken service;

d) age 25 joiner, no promotion, 5 year career break."

Godge

OMD wrote: »

Are you saying the vast majority of PS workers do not have a final salary of less than €50,000? Please provide proof. The average salary is above 40k so common sense dictates final salary will be above 50k. It is final salary that counts

Just thinking about this again. Are you saying the state old age pension is €24,000 a year?

No he wasn't. What he said was the spouse's pension is half the public servant's pension which is therefore a quarter of salary.

Head The Wall

cosbloodymick wrote: »

The elephant in the room is the state pension of circa 12k per annum that public sector workers are not entitled to. This pension is paid to all citizens of this state bar public sector workers (the non contributary pension is slightly less) whether they have worked or not. So this figure should be subtracted from any calculation of the value of a public sector pension.
For example if a public sector worker retires on a salary of 36000 his/her pension would be 18000 per annum. 18000 - 12000 = 6000.
For this 6000 per annum the public sector worker has to contribute at least 15% of salary for 40 years. That would be equal to 5400 x 40 = 216000.
If a person paid 216000 into a private pension fund you would expect a return of 11000 per annum. yet in effect the public sector worker only gets 6000. No wonder some public sector workers want to opt out of the pension scheme but unfortunately cannot. Its compulsory!

Another way to look at this is seeing as Private sector and public sector both make social contributions to the govt for pensions they are the ones getting a raw deal. Why do people that get a non contributory pension receive nearly the same as someone that has contributed most of their life.

flintash

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I would add to that the public sector junior docs, registrars, etc etc who are similarly working absolutely ridiculous hours that are expressly forbidden under the working time directives. eg: Surgery trainees doing up to 120 hours per week and not getting a bit of overtime for any of it over their standard 35,37 or whatever contract.

31 hours does seem quite low though. Most contracts that I'm aware of are 35 hours over 7 days, 8am - 8pm rostering. If the AVERAGE is 31, what have they included? Are part timers thrown into that average? Are there people on ridiculously short contracts?

really? so he's 48 hours left in a week to sleep. Make me believe it:D

OMD

cosbloodymick wrote: »

The elephant in the room is the state pension of circa 12k per annum that public sector workers are not entitled to. This pension is paid to all citizens of this state bar public sector workers (the non contributary pension is slightly less) whether they have worked or not. So this figure should be subtracted from any calculation of the value of a public sector pension.
For example if a public sector worker retires on a salary of 36000 his/her pension would be 18000 per annum. 18000 - 12000 = 6000.
For this 6000 per annum the public sector worker has to contribute at least 15% of salary for 40 years. That would be equal to 5400 x 40 = 216000.
If a person paid 216000 into a private pension fund you would expect a return of 11000 per annum. yet in effect the public sector worker only gets 6000. No wonder some public sector workers want to opt out of the pension scheme but unfortunately cannot. Its compulsory!

Your figures are wrong for 2 reasons. You are not including the lump sum if up to 1.5 times final salary.

You are also assuming if the person retires on €36,000 that they actually earned that all their working lives. This applies to no public servant. By doing this you are ignoring inflation, pay rises and pay increments and promotions. So the figures you supply are totally wrong.

In addition the 15% pension contribution while actually closer to 13%, only applies to the last 4 years. So someone returning now would not have paid this for the vast majority of their working lives. For most if the time they would have paid 6.5%.

Anyway future PS retirees will be entitled to the PRSI pension. Current ones are not because they did not pay enough PRSI.

barneystinson

flintash wrote: »

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I would add to that the public sector junior docs, registrars, etc etc who are similarly working absolutely ridiculous hours that are expressly forbidden under the working time directives. eg: Surgery trainees doing up to 120 hours per week and not getting a bit of overtime for any of it over their standard 35,37 or whatever contract.

31 hours does seem quite low though. Most contracts that I'm aware of are 35 hours over 7 days, 8am - 8pm rostering. If the AVERAGE is 31, what have they included? Are part timers thrown into that average? Are there people on ridiculously short contracts?

really? so he's 48 hours left in a week to sleep. Make me believe it:D

Tut, too lazy to Google "junior doctor working hours" eh?
Well here's one of the first hits, and it's as recent as 2 months ago: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0809/1224321806412.html

"Recently I spoke to a young doctor in a busy hospital who commenced work that day at 8.30am and was having her first break at 11.10pm as she took a call from me. The only food available to her was a bowl of cereal. She was on duty for the rest of the night and the following day and was expected to work more than 100 hours that week."

Now you may say, sure that's only anecdotal evidence from a letter to the Irish Times, in which case I'd say the letter is signed so feck off and ask yerwoman who wrote it what the name of the doctor in question is, if you're still not happy.

OMD

Godge wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

Do you understand PS pensions?
Do you think the pension board link can calculate the equivalent of a PS pension?
If you do then you seriously do not understand pensions.
From your comments I presume you cannot/will not answer the previous questions

I don't think you understand pensions either. Public servants have a new pension scheme. Have a read of the Trident report on this site.

http://www.into.ie/pensions/

I know it is a union report but since the report was commissioned there have been further cuts in pay for new teachers.

some interesting quotes in relation to the new scheme

"15) We have tested the new proposals across various scenarios and the following

profiles are among those which would pay more in than they would get out of

the new scheme:

a) age 21 joiner, no promotion, unbroken service;

b) age 21 joiner, Special Duties post at age 40, unbroken service;

c) age 25 joiner, no promotion, unbroken service;

d) age 25 joiner, no promotion, 5 year career break."

Right so. Just out of curiosity. Of all the current Public sector workers and all the current PS pensioners to what percentage does this apply? Just a rough figure. Seeing as you say I don't understand public sector pensions that apply to the enormous majority of PS workers current and past.

OMD

Godge wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

Are you saying the vast majority of PS workers do not have a final salary of less than €50,000? Please provide proof. The average salary is above 40k so common sense dictates final salary will be above 50k. It is final salary that counts

Just thinking about this again. Are you saying the state old age pension is €24,000 a year?

No he wasn't. What he said was the spouse's pension is half the public servant's pension which is therefore a quarter of salary.

Sorry about that. Of course it is half but it still applies to the majority rather than the minority as the previous poster made out.

flintash

barneystinson wrote: »

Tut, too lazy to Google "junior doctor working hours" eh?.....still not happy.

Is this happening in HSE department?
I though they cant make people do acctual work there, never mind 120hours
relax dude, reading too much newspapers, uh?
p.s. (off-topic) run and buy a house - prices are rising again
Peace

barneystinson

flintash wrote: »

barneystinson wrote: »

Tut, too lazy to Google "junior doctor working hours" eh?.....still not happy.

Is this happening in HSE department?
I though they cant make people do acctual work there, never mind 120hours
relax dude, reading too much newspapers, uh?
p.s. (off-topic) run and buy a house - prices are rising again
Peace

I'm pretty sure you're one of a tiny minority who think that frontline doctors & nurses don't "do actual work". I think it's pretty much universally accepted that it's the administration and management of the health services that are the main problem. I was in a hospital ward with a relative this week and the staff I saw were all flat out.

cosbloodymick

OMD wrote: »

Your figures are wrong for 2 reasons. You are not including the lump sum if up to 1.5 times final salary.

You are also assuming if the person retires on €36,000 that they actually earned that all their working lives. This applies to no public servant. By doing this you are ignoring inflation, pay rises and pay increments and promotions. So the figures you supply are totally wrong.

In addition the 15% pension contribution while actually closer to 13%, only applies to the last 4 years. So someone returning now would not have paid this for the vast majority of their working lives. For most if the time they would have paid 6.5%.

Anyway future PS retirees will be entitled to the PRSI pension. Current ones are not because they did not pay enough PRSI.

Lump sum and increments accepted, I would still argue you are losing out big time if you are a lower paid public servant. I know of many who would trade in the "rolls royce gold plated pension" for the state old age pension and do their own savings rather than contribute to the public service pension.

Also future public service retirees do not get the PRSI pension ON TOP of their public service pension despite paying the higher rate PRSI. Its included/ran in with their Public Service pension.

Another issue is that all income of a public servant is not pensionable eg overtime, yet Public Servants pay pension levies on income that is not even pensionable which is very unfair.

sock puppet

woodoo wrote: »

At a quick glace over that report it looks like the PS is paid about 10 to 15% more than the private sector. But this seems to be due to the higher education achieved by PS workers, a higher number of professional qualifications in the PS. And most worryingly of all the private sector seems to be stuck in the last century in terms of sexism and low pay for women.

Eh what? Do you really think the statisticians in the CSO are so inept as to not take education, gender and professional status into account in their regression analyses? They're all used as explanatory variables.

cosbloodymick

sock puppet wrote: »

Eh what? Do you really think the statisticians in the CSO are so inept as to not take education, gender and professional status into account in their regression analyses? They're all used as explanatory variables.

They didn't take the pension levy into account!

Head The Wall

cosbloodymick wrote: »

They didn't take the pension levy into account!

Yes that's because they also didn't include any private sector pension contributions in the calculations. You know, so they can do equal comparisons.

[Jackass]

The fact that this report is being branded about by pro-ps people as though it somehow shows things aren't that lob-sided really shows how bad the situation is... "look, PS workers aren't paid 50% more" :smug: when the actual figure depending on rate of pay ranges from up to a quarter to one third...

God save us all.

The averaged out figure is also misleading because the pay scale at the top of the private sector is unlimited, so directors of multi-national companies could be on 1m+ a year.

It's the low to middling employees up to the median score that is most interesting, and that score at over 38% is incredible and actually worse than I thought.

I don't know, I don't want to keep beating the same drum, I just have serious difficultly in comprehending how anyone, private or public sector, can't see how public wages (in certain areas) should be slashed.... I like to think I'm pretty balanced and diplomatic on these matters, but this is just one topic where I really really can't understand the opposite position of public sector wages being appropriate...

(for example I would increase, and substationally in some cases, aspects such as nursing wages, but that would be funded by big cuts in the administration pay cut and would redeploy the work force to get value for money and find a surplus to invest in capital infrastructure to stimulate growth - not cutting expenditure, just redeploying resources more efficiently and productively..)

Riskymove

[Jackass] wrote: »

The averaged out figure is also misleading because the pay scale at the top of the private sector is unlimited, so directors of multi-national companies could be on 1m+ a year.

It's the low to middling employees up to the median score that is most interesting, and that score at over 38% is incredible and actually worse than I thought.

if you think that the highest private sectors skew comparisons then would you not accept that the low, minimum-wage, wages paid in certain private sectors also skew comparisons?

comparing the wages of any one group of workers (public or private) to an average wage of all private sector is, imo, pretty meaningless. For example you can take certain sectors of the Private sector and they are also well ahead of the overall average wage - yet I see little evidence that people find this unfair.

Godge

sock puppet wrote: »

Eh what? Do you really think the statisticians in the CSO are so inept as to not take education, gender and professional status into account in their regression analyses? They're all used as explanatory variables.

Yes, they are used as explanatory variables but maybe I need to read it again as it wasn't clear that the figures were adjusted for the explanatory variables.

Godge

[Jackass] wrote: »

...

The averaged out figure is also misleading because the pay scale at the top of the private sector is unlimited, so directors of multi-national companies could be on 1m+ a year.

..)

wrong, directors would be classed as self-employed. If you look at revenue statistics for instance, the self-employed in the private sector have the greatest earning power. One of the problems with the CSO data all along was the greater number of self-employed in Ireland and the fact that their higher earnings were excluded from comparison with the public sector. This was one of the reasons Ireland had a greater public sector pay premium than other countries.

Geuze

Godge wrote: »

Yes, they are used as explanatory variables but maybe I need to read it again as it wasn't clear that the figures were adjusted for the explanatory variables.

They were.

Tipp Man

Godge wrote: »

wrong, directors would be classed as self-employed. If you look at revenue statistics for instance, the self-employed in the private sector have the greatest earning power. One of the problems with the CSO data all along was the greater number of self-employed in Ireland and the fact that their higher earnings were excluded from comparison with the public sector. This was one of the reasons Ireland had a greater public sector pay premium than other countries.

since when are directors of multi nationals classed as self employed??

Godge

Tipp Man wrote: »

since when are directors of multi nationals classed as self employed??

All company directors are classed as self-employed. That is what you meant by director?

ahnowbrowncow

Tipp Man wrote: »

since when are directors of multi nationals classed as self employed??

Godge wrote: »

All company directors are classed as self-employed. That is what you meant by director?

Only if they have more than 50% of the voting rights???

[Jackass]

Godge wrote: »

wrong, directors would be classed as self-employed. If you look at revenue statistics for instance, the self-employed in the private sector have the greatest earning power. One of the problems with the CSO data all along was the greater number of self-employed in Ireland and the fact that their higher earnings were excluded from comparison with the public sector. This was one of the reasons Ireland had a greater public sector pay premium than other countries.

Well, I'm talking about directors of multinationals, such as the European Operations Manager in Google or Chief Executive of Davy Stockbrokers. They would own shares in the company alright, but would very much be employees as apposed to self-employed. The reason they skew the results is there is no equivalent in the public sector.

Riskymove wrote: »

if you think that the highest private sectors skew comparisons then would you not accept that the low, minimum-wage, wages paid in certain private sectors also skew comparisons?

comparing the wages of any one group of workers (public or private) to an average wage of all private sector is, imo, pretty meaningless. For example you can take certain sectors of the Private sector and they are also well ahead of the overall average wage - yet I see little evidence that people find this unfair.

As above, the higher end has no equivalent, where as there are many people doing the same job in the public and private sector on minimum wage so it is a relevant comparison, just the figures tend to show that while you might be on minimum wage for a job in private sector, you can tend to be on a highly inflated wage with a fat pension paid for by the taxpayer in the public sector, as long as you've been doing it for 20+ years... Productivity, performance and output should define wage levels, not longevity...

Gumbo

[Jackass] wrote: »

just the figures tend to show that while you might be on minimum wage for a job in private sector, you can tend to be on a highly inflated wage with a fat pension paid for by the taxpayer in the public sector, as long as you've been doing it for 20+ years... Productivity, performance and output should define wage levels, not longevity...

In one post you claim your are diplomatic and level headed yet you come out with a statement like that WTF ????

Middle earners in the PS, lets say average industrial wage earners, can you outline what this fat pension paid by the tax payer is?

[Jackass]

kceire wrote: »

In one post you claim your are diplomatic and level headed yet you come out with a statement like that WTF ????

Middle earners in the PS, lets say average industrial wage earners, can you outline what this fat pension paid by the tax payer is?

Hold on a second and rewind, we're still on the point of inflated wages and that's where the propping up by the tax payer is coming in. It's hardly offensive, just a fact.

Put it this way, if everything was privatised (which obviously I'm not suggesting it should be) and where applicable competition was introduced, what do you think would happen to staffing levels, pay rates and efficiency in the public sector? I'll give you a clue, two of them would fall dramatically and one of them would rise dramatically.

That's the bottom line. There should be no sense of being owed a living. This is a dog eat dog world and being wrapped up in cotton wool and put on a pay scale with little or no incentive to be either productive nor efficient just means we (you and I as tax payers) are being ripped off...

If you ran your own business for example, I think you would suddenly become a lot less charitable towards peoples god given entitlements (or merely percieved) and a lot more aware of the bottom line...

Maybe we're from two different worlds, maybe that's why there's such a gap between perspectives on each side of the table here - one side seems to think it should be about security and being looked after and the other side thinks it should be all about the bottom line and earning....

I do think I'm fair and balanced, but I just think a tough private sector view point scares the bejesus out of public sector people and they can't get their head around it....like I said, two different worlds...