Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

woodoo

barneystinson wrote: »

Nor does the headline figure allow for the DB pension that the public sector worker has, which the large majority of private sector workers don't have.

Granted, on a CO salary the DB pension isn't hugely valuable, but then again neither is the pension levy liability. Swings and roundabouts really.

A CO is paying about 9% of their gross pay towards their pension.

sock puppet

woodoo wrote: »

So the future isn't outsourcing then.

Outsourcing refers to the contracting out of functions not labour.

Count Dooku wrote: »

a) it always was closed shop
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2010-04-28.1056.0
I think that even one appointed from outside had a strong backround in civil service before)
b) even in 2005 it was at least 46 applicants for each position in civil service
(46595 applied for 1012 positions, table 4 http://www.cpsa.ie/User_Uploads/en/CPSA_Report2006E.pdf)

The civil service have recruited plenty of private sector workers at lower levels.

barneystinson

woodoo wrote: »

A CO is paying about 9% of their gross pay towards their pension.

I presume you're not including the pension levy in that 9%, since we are (nearly all) agreed its a pay cut. And for that 9% they get a DB pension. What's your point?

Mine was that saying you can't directly compare gross pay of a CO with a private sector equivalent because of pension levy is nitpicking - the 2 figures are fairly comparable. That's also without adjusting for a shorter working week in the PS or for the value of flexitime to the employee.

I'm saying the 2 sets of gross figures are broadly comparable, if you can find a similar clerical role. And I'm suggesting that you'll struggle to find many instances of a private sector job where the pay for a clerical role equivalent to a CO will match/exceed the top of the CO scale.

skafish

sock puppet wrote: »

Outsourcing refers to the contracting out of functions not labour.



It refers to both.

Since the embargo, combined with the number of nurses leaving, the only supply of staff for most hospitals to cover sick leave etc. is to use agency staff (or outsource the labor). The problem stems from the fact that agency staff, because they are not guaranteed full time work, usually command a higher hourly rate than their full time equivalents. Then the agency has to get their fee. Makes it a whole lot more expensive than employing staff. Another great example of government shortsightedness.

BTW, the above does not just apply to the HSE; many government agencies are forced to use agency staff.
Personally, I think it a ridiculous waste of money.

sock puppet

skafish wrote: »

It refers to both.

Since the embargo, combined with the number of nurses leaving, the only supply of staff for most hospitals to cover sick leave etc. is to use agency staff (or outsource the labor). The problem stems from the fact that agency staff, because they are not guaranteed full time work, usually command a higher hourly rate than their full time equivalents. Then the agency has to get their fee. Makes it a whole lot more expensive than employing staff. Another great example of government shortsightedness.

BTW, the above does not just apply to the HSE; many government agencies are forced to use agency staff.
Personally, I think it a ridiculous waste of money.

Contracting out labour and contracting out a business process are completely different and not comparable. When people talk about outsourcing they are referring to the latter.

Count Dooku

sock puppet wrote: »

The civil service have recruited plenty of private sector workers at lower levels.

Keyword "lower levels". In private sector people can join to any level what they deserve

earlyevening

In many areas of the public service, nett pay is nett of credit union subscriptions which very definitely means its an unfair figure to quote when it includes a contribution to personal savings.

donegal11

skafish wrote: »

Generally, outsourced staff cost about 35% more than direct employed staff.

Do you have a reference to that claim? An agency worker would be cheaper in terms of only be used when needed and hence be more efficient rather then just comparing hourly rates.

AlexisM

woodoo wrote: »

A CO is paying about 9% of their gross pay towards their pension.

A CO doesn't pay anywhere near 9% for their pension. They pay 3% of salary plus 3.5% of net pensionable salary (this is salary minus twice the state pension of about 12K). So a mid-scale CO on about 30K pays 3% of 30K plus 3.5% of 6K = a total of €1,530 which is 5.1% of the gross 30K salary. And they get tax relief on it which brings the real cost down to about 4.1% of gross salary. This is excellent value for a DB pension with full inflation linked to payscales.

hallelujajordan

Dreamertime wrote: »

Take home pay is the only game in my town I'm afraid.

If your personal salary is relevant to the debate (I don't think it is btw, but you introduced it) then you should post your gross salary so that people can make an accurate comparison.. You should also post your role and skill level to put some context around your position (again, I don't think this is about you but you personalised it )

Q ? Do you think you could earn an equivalent salary (gross + benefits) in the private sector . . . .? If not then why do you think the tax payer should be paying you more than your market value ??

sock puppet

Count Dooku wrote: »

Keyword "lower levels". In private sector people can join to any level what they deserve

So someone with no experience in the private sector could join a company at absolutely any level?

Godge

sock puppet wrote: »

Contracting out labour and contracting out a business process are completely different and not comparable. When people talk about outsourcing they are referring to the latter.

When which people talk about it?

In the public service context, the discussion is about both.

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

Nor does the headline figure allow for the DB pension that the public sector worker has, which the large majority of private sector workers don't have.

Granted, on a CO salary the DB pension isn't hugely valuable, but then again neither is the pension levy liability. Swings and roundabouts really.

Nor does the headline figure allow for bonuses, cars, VHI, etc. which are more common in the private sector. Neither does it account for level of qualifications, working hours, relative seniority, size of organisation, composition of workforce, self-employed status etc. It is like comparing apples and oranges which makes the 17% differential that people talk about meaningless.

sock puppet

Godge wrote: »

When which people talk about it?

In the public service context, the discussion is about both.

When people advocate outsourcing as a means of reducing government expenditure they're not saying that the government should replace lots of permanent staff with agency staff, or at least, they haven't in any discussion I've heard.

Though in general you are right. It was wrong of me to say that recruitment outsourcing is not outsourcing.

AlexisM

AlexisM wrote: »

A CO doesn't pay anywhere near 9% for their pension. They pay 3% of salary plus 3.5% of net pensionable salary (this is salary minus twice the state pension of about 12K). So a mid-scale CO on about 30K pays 3% of 30K plus 3.5% of 6K = a total of €1,530 which is 5.1% of the gross 30K salary. And they get tax relief on it which brings the real cost down to about 4.1% of gross salary. This is excellent value for a DB pension with full inflation linked to payscales.

If they retire on 30k their defined benefit pension is €15k(which is inclusive of the standard state pension of 12k)

Im assuming that the state pension will also be linked to inflation and not static!

Bumski

sarumite wrote: »

As someone who has spent a signigicant amount of time living and working in Sweden, you can't really compare Ireland (or many other countries) to the Nordic countries. The government is involved in so many aspects of life in Sweden that it really is a world apart from Ireland.

And that's why the public service numbers are significantly higher there and that's reflected in the data I posted. However I was replying to H.jordan and his unsubstantiated claim that Ireland's PS issignificantly overstaffed and the data indicates that that is the claim lacks basis as Ireland is in the median in this regard. (and that was a few years ago before reuctions in numbers)

AlexisM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If they retire on 30k their defined benefit pension is €15k(which is inclusive of the standard state pension of 12k)

That is incorrect. From 2004, the pension calculation was changed so that lower paid employees got more than 50% as their pension (see http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/faq2.pdf). Someone retiring on 30K would get a total pension of 18K including 12K state pension so their contributions are funding a 6K pension.

Looking at the 'value', someone on a flat 30K for 40 years would contribute €1,530 per annum which is €1,224 after tax relief of 20%. 40 times 1,224 is €48,960 - so that's their total contribution over 40 years. Out of this, they get a lump sum of 1.5 times salary which is €45,000 tax free. This leaves them having paid €3,960 in total to fund a €6K per annum pension with inflation protection! That has to be looked on as a phenomenally good deal...

Count Dooku

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If they retire on 30k their defined benefit pension is €15k(which is inclusive of the standard state pension of 12k)

Are you sure that those who pay PRSI on reduced rates are eligible for state pension?

Some workers in the public sector do not have cover for all benefits and pensions and they pay a modified PRSI contribution - Class B, C, D or H.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Pay-Related-Social-Insurance-PRSI-Contribution-Classes.aspx

Wanderer2010

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Here's how it works in the real world . . . Productivity is managed seperately to salary . . If your productivity is unacceptable you will be given x amount of time to improve and if you dont show an improvement you will be removed from your position . . I will then hire someone else at the market rate who can achieve an acceptable level of productivity. .

That may sound harsh to those in the public sector but that is how the private sector works every day . .

No it doesnt. I work in the private sector and I have seen lots of workers get away with murder like being sick for 25 days a year, constantly being late, refusing to do work because it was too close to going-home time, leaving work early, being disrespectful and causing a hostile work environment. And the closest I have ever come to seeing anyone being disciplined for this was a verbal warning which caused so much hassle through appeals etc that they basically just left the person to do their own thing in future.

You cant just say that people are replaced simple as that in the private sector every day because Im an example of a workplace that definitely does not follow procedure and plenty of other private sector jobs are the same Im sure. Theres a perception that public sector workers can do what they like and never get sacked but this happens in the private sector as well.

tayto lover

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

No it doesnt. I work in the private sector and I have seen lots of workers get away with murder like being sick for 25 days a year, constantly being late, refusing to do work because it was too close to going-home time, leaving work early, being disrespectful and causing a hostile work environment. And the closest I have ever come to seeing anyone being disciplined for this was a verbal warning which caused so much hassle through appeals etc that they basically just left the person to do their own thing in future.

You cant just say that people are replaced simple as that in the private sector every day because Im an example of a workplace that definitely does not follow procedure and plenty of other private sector jobs are the same Im sure. Theres a perception that public sector workers can do what they like and never get sacked but this happens in the private sector as well.

I can concur with that. I have seen it many many times.

Why do posters exaggerate to try and prove their point? Very few believe these stories of how well the Private Sector is run compared to the Public Sector. The truth is that there are lazy bstards everywhere. Things are not as tight or as well run as posters try to pretend in many parts of the Private Sector. And on the question of allowances, in the Private Sector I have received Christmas Boxes, Cash bonuses, free meals out, tickets for events as perks in several jobs over the years. I never had to work a Sunday, Bank Holiday or Christmas. I did work nights for a time and I can say with hand on heart that no money would pay you for it. It is soul-destroying. It has to take years off your life. Anyone getting an allowance for working nights should look for a lot more.
So quit the exaggerating and whinging lads.

Dreamertime

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If your personal salary is relevant to the debate (I don't think it is btw, but you introduced it) then you should post your gross salary so that people can make an accurate comparison.. You should also post your role and skill level to put some context around your position (again, I don't think this is about you but you personalised it )

Q ? Do you think you could earn an equivalent salary (gross + benefits) in the private sector . . . .? If not then why do you think the tax payer should be paying you more than your market value ??

I took a massive paycut on entering the Civil Service.

I'm not going to divulge where I work of my role. My choice.

However when you take home €382 a week it grounds you in the reality of your situation.

oscarBravo

Dreamertime wrote: »

I took a massive paycut on entering the Civil Service.

Why?

Dreamertime

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

Personal reasons.

woodoo

Godge wrote: »

Nor does the headline figure allow for bonuses, cars, VHI, etc. which are more common in the private sector. Neither does it account for level of qualifications, working hours, relative seniority, size of organisation, composition of workforce, self-employed status etc. It is like comparing apples and oranges which makes the 17% differential that people talk about meaningless.

That 17% figure is skewed by the semi states anyway. Public servants don't want to be jumped in with them when they have not bee touched by any cuts. Infact i think they may even have got a 3% rise in 2009

woodoo

AlexisM wrote: »

That is incorrect. From 2004, the pension calculation was changed so that lower paid employees got more than 50% as their pension (see http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/faq2.pdf). Someone retiring on 30K would get a total pension of 18K including 12K state pension so their contributions are funding a 6K pension.

Looking at the 'value', someone on a flat 30K for 40 years would contribute €1,530 per annum which is €1,224 after tax relief of 20%. 40 times 1,224 is €48,960 - so that's their total contribution over 40 years. Out of this, they get a lump sum of 1.5 times salary which is €45,000 tax free. This leaves them having paid €3,960 in total to fund a €6K per annum pension with inflation protection! That has to be looked on as a phenomenally good deal...

You are not allowing any appreciation of the 45K figure you used as the lump sum?

woodoo

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

No it doesnt. I work in the private sector and I have seen lots of workers get away with murder like being sick for 25 days a year, constantly being late, refusing to do work because it was too close to going-home time, leaving work early, being disrespectful and causing a hostile work environment. And the closest I have ever come to seeing anyone being disciplined for this was a verbal warning which caused so much hassle through appeals etc that they basically just left the person to do their own thing in future.

You cant just say that people are replaced simple as that in the private sector every day because Im an example of a workplace that definitely does not follow procedure and plenty of other private sector jobs are the same Im sure. Theres a perception that public sector workers can do what they like and never get sacked but this happens in the private sector as well.

Absolutely true. I know how hollow the rubbish i hear about the oh so perfect private sector is. I worked in a company in the private sector for a couple of years about a decade ago and i seen people get away with murder. Verbal warning was all they got.

Wanderer2010

Ya I know, I put it down to weak management. I have seen workers do terrible things (rule breaking, ignoring safety warnings etc) and this is the private sector. It boils down to whether management have balls or dont have balls. When they dont, workers do pretty much what they want and never have to answer for it. When they do, workers get a fair chance to improve and then out the door. Its just that clause in the public sector of rarely getting fired that gets most people riled. They forget that lazy and undisciplined workers ALSO exist in the private sector.

Hotblack Desiato

My wife's experience in the private sector is that if you either used to play rugby in the same club as the boss, or currently play golf in the same club as the boss, you are completely untouchable no matter how useless you are and how much harder your team has to work to cover up for you.

hallelujajordan

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

No it doesnt. I work in the private sector and I have seen lots of workers get away with murder like being sick for 25 days a year, constantly being late, refusing to do work because it was too close to going-home time, leaving work early, being disrespectful and causing a hostile work environment. And the closest I have ever come to seeing anyone being disciplined for this was a verbal warning which caused so much hassle through appeals etc that they basically just left the person to do their own thing in future.

You cant just say that people are replaced simple as that in the private sector every day because Im an example of a workplace that definitely does not follow procedure and plenty of other private sector jobs are the same Im sure. Theres a perception that public sector workers can do what they like and never get sacked but this happens in the private sector as well.

Fair enough . . and I have seen that too . . not every company is run effectively !

The difference is that in the Private Sector this behaviour happens because of poor management and usually both the manager and the employee (and maybe the company) will suffer in the long term . . In the Public Sector this behaviour can become cultural norm and there are no mechanisms in place to deal with it.

The other difference is that a private sector company answers only to its owners or shareholders. It is their prerogative to allow that behaviour. The public sector are answerable to the taxpayer and we should certainly not allow it..

Dreamertime

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Fair enough . . and I have seen that too . . not every company is run effectively !

The difference is that in the Private Sector this behaviour happens because of poor management and usually both the manager and the employee (and maybe the company) will suffer in the long term . . In the Public Sector this behaviour can become cultural norm and there are no mechanisms in place to deal with it.

The other difference is that a private sector company answers only to its owners or shareholders. It is their prerogative to allow that behaviour. The public sector are answerable to the taxpayer and we should certainly not allow it..

Flogging of Public servants on O'Connell Bridge sound good to you?