Government to reverse some Public Secor Pay cuts

fliball123

mariaalice wrote: »

You are entitled to you opinion as much as anyone else, however have you anything new to add to this debate this thread is I don't know how many pages long and you are just going round and round in circles.

What I have take from this thread some people will never be happy no matter how much or little the public services are paid.

The posters with the well thought well reasoned argument about the public services long ago dropped out of the debate leaving it to the foaming at the mouth with rage posters, who post circular argument over and over again.

Some public servants don't under stand the terms and conditions of their own employment.

Some poster were under the impression that public servants only meant administrators.

The whole tread was almost completely pointless it was never going to happen in a general sense.

The HRA does allow for restoration in pay if certain factors are met.

Hey I was the one calling for it to be closed as it is a non-argument FG have been out stating that its not happening. This is the thing the ps vs private had gone silent for months maybe even a year..its only when the unions stick their beardy heads up and look for pay rises that it gets generally the majority of the private sector gander up..Add in the fact they are looking for it at time that we are still borrowing (so we have to find this extra cash somewhere or borrow it) and will have to start paying water charges aswell, its like we live in a different planets to the beards

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

Barney your giving up because you know I am right in what I am saying..spinning a subset of a larger sample size in stats can be spun to what ever you want by picking the numbers you want.

Did you know that the CSO only looks at a small number of companies for its surveys, it doesn't look at every company or public sector employment in the country?

So who is spinning who?

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Do you really understand nothing? Do you really never read anyone else's post? Seriously. I explained to you already using a simple example of a country of 10 people to show how the exclusion of business tycoons and the contracting out of cleaners distorted the statistics. Here it is again.



Changing the sample size does nothing as the principles remain. The statistics are skewed because self-employed, business directors, etc. are excluded from the private sector statistics and also because the public sector has contracted out many low-wage activity to the private sector. Please stop embarrassing yourself over this one as sometimes you make some good points on other issues but you are out of our depth on this one.

Sorry when the sample size is the entire number that you are sampling then the results are very accurate the higher the number you sample the higher the degree of accuracy. So you can subset it, sample certain areas, skew it in favour of people on contracts or to GPs. The fact is there is nothing you can do to skew the headline figure..There is no argument you can make that will do so. I have shown you how I can skew it completely in favour of the Private sector as well each time you or Barney try to skew it in favour of the public sector...40% overall ps over private there is no diluting that, nothing you can say will dilute ..sorry you have lost your argument

fliball123

Godge wrote: »

Did you know that the CSO only looks at a small number of companies for its surveys, it doesn't look at every company or public sector employment in the country?

So who is spinning who?

I believe the latest one was done via the census data that was collected.

antoobrien

gazzer wrote: »

Do a check for the wages that non Civil Servant staff in IT sections of government departments get for contract work and compare it against the salaries that Civil Servants IT Staff get. You will see there is a massive difference in favour of the contract staff.

The same is true of the private sector, the higher rates are to compensate for the non-permanent nature of the position.

barneystinson

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry when the sample size is the entire number that you are sampling then the results are very accurate the higher the number you sample the higher the degree of accuracy. So you can subset it, sample certain areas, skew it in favour of people on contracts or to GPs. The fact is there is nothing you can do to skew the headline figure..There is no argument you can make that will do so. I have shown you how I can skew it completely in favour of the Private sector as well each time you or Barney try to skew it in favour of the public sector...40% overall ps over private there is no diluting that, nothing you can say will dilute ..sorry you have lost your argument

OK, OK I'll take the bait!

All snide comments and point scoring aside - I'm actually not trying to be smart but I'm trying to fundamentally change how either you or I understand statistics and averages - can you explain how it is comparable to compare the average of the entire PS pay with the average of private sector pay? I'm going to try and explain the way I think about it, and I'd appreciate it if you at least read what I'm saying and think about it before you reply.

You've mentioned benchmarking lots of times on here. If you think about benchmarking, that requires you to try and find something that you can compare like for like. So if we could go and pull out of the 1.7m private sector workers, the 300k whose jobs were most similar to each of the 300k people working in the public sector, what do you think we would see? As someone who favours genuine benchmarking, I assume that's actually an exercise you'd endorse, if it was actually possible to do it? That's a genuine question, and not a trick question. I know for absolute certain that I could earn more doing an equivalent job in the private sector, so it's not something that I'd have any issue with, if it were feasible.

I reckon we would see a good few in each group who are paid more than their equivalent in the other sector, and a good few who are paid less, and plenty who are not far apart in either direction. My personal belief is that at the lower end is where you'll find the PS cohort ahead, as well as some in the middle, and then as you go higher up it swings in favour of the private sector.

Now, having taken those 300k private sector people, and bear in mind that these are the 300k people in the private sector whose jobs are the most similar to the 300k in the PS - what would happen if you took their average pay and compared it to the average of their 300k equivalents in the PS?

And how would their average pay compare to the other 1.4m private sector workers whose jobs (and wage rates) range from slightly different to completely different?

In which case, when you add the 300k back in with the other very different 1.4m workers, and get a new average, how does that become a better average to compare, or benchmark, the PS average against?

Surely the only relevant average, is the average of the two like-for-like groups?

I've genuinely read your posts and they just don't make sense to me - the only way the figures make sense, to me at least, is when I think about it like that. I'm entirely open to you explaining how you see it in a way that makes more sense than that, and changing my mind.

Larbre34

fliball123 wrote: »

Sorry when the sample size is the entire number that you are sampling then the results are very accurate the higher the number you sample the higher the degree of accuracy. So you can subset it, sample certain areas, skew it in favour of people on contracts or to GPs. The fact is there is nothing you can do to skew the headline figure..There is no argument you can make that will do so. I have shown you how I can skew it completely in favour of the Private sector as well each time you or Barney try to skew it in favour of the public sector...40% overall ps over private there is no diluting that, nothing you can say will dilute ..sorry you have lost your argument

No there is nothing to be done to skew the headline figure. It was calculated on a false premise in the first place so it is entirely useless to the argument being had here.

Unless and until the private sector data discounts the service workers, part-time, casual and zero hour contract staff from the less skilled end of the economy which do not feature in the Public Service, it is a complete case of apples and oranges.

ardmacha

On average Irish adults have 0.99 of a breast and 0.9995 of a testicle. This average, like those frequently quoted here, is entirely useless as guide to policy.

mirrorwall14

Increasing sample size does not improve bias or skewed collection methods.

This misconception is one of the reasons for Project Maths teaching a major chunk of statistics to second level students. They need to learn to challenge statistics such as this one and others.

woodoo

I often wonder what inspires the anti PS brigade. Something is really agitating them. Perhaps its people who feel bitter because their careers haven't turned out as they'd hoped and they are on low wages. Or maybe its people earnings decent money but they made silly decisions or had poor money management skills and are subsequently bitter about that.

Godge

fliball123 wrote: »

I believe the latest one was done via the census data that was collected.

Link?

fliball123

barneystinson wrote: »

OK, OK I'll take the bait!

All snide comments and point scoring aside - I'm actually not trying to be smart but I'm trying to fundamentally change how either you or I understand statistics and averages - can you explain how it is comparable to compare the average of the entire PS pay with the average of private sector pay? I'm going to try and explain the way I think about it, and I'd appreciate it if you at least read what I'm saying and think about it before you reply.

You've mentioned benchmarking lots of times on here. If you think about benchmarking, that requires you to try and find something that you can compare like for like. So if we could go and pull out of the 1.7m private sector workers, the 300k whose jobs were most similar to each of the 300k people working in the public sector, what do you think we would see? As someone who favours genuine benchmarking, I assume that's actually an exercise you'd endorse, if it was actually possible to do it? That's a genuine question, and not a trick question. I know for absolute certain that I could earn more doing an equivalent job in the private sector, so it's not something that I'd have any issue with, if it were feasible.

I reckon we would see a good few in each group who are paid more than their equivalent in the other sector, and a good few who are paid less, and plenty who are not far apart in either direction. My personal belief is that at the lower end is where you'll find the PS cohort ahead, as well as some in the middle, and then as you go higher up it swings in favour of the private sector.

Now, having taken those 300k private sector people, and bear in mind that these are the 300k people in the private sector whose jobs are the most similar to the 300k in the PS - what would happen if you took their average pay and compared it to the average of their 300k equivalents in the PS?

And how would their average pay compare to the other 1.4m private sector workers whose jobs (and wage rates) range from slightly different to completely different?

In which case, when you add the 300k back in with the other very different 1.4m workers, and get a new average, how does that become a better average to compare, or benchmark, the PS average against?

Surely the only relevant average, is the average of the two like-for-like groups?

I've genuinely read your posts and they just don't make sense to me - the only way the figures make sense, to me at least, is when I think about it like that. I'm entirely open to you explaining how you see it in a way that makes more sense than that, and changing my mind.

People can argue all they want but when the same comparisons in other countries the same differential is not there. How do you all explain this one? Look I was calling for this thread to be closed as there will be no pay rises going in in the next couple of years above increments...and I am tired of the argument when the stats are there and comparisons in other countries show that the differential between public and private are not anywhere near the gap that is here..Yet we will hear the Public sector distort things to their agenda and even with all the anomalies that are there , they are also there in other countries yet our differential is more..

As I say I don't want to be coming across trying to kick you..I think the PS in general (front line in particular) do a good job. There are some slackers and there is a complete piss take with sick days..and I had not posted on anything PS related for nearly a year..It was only when the beards started and Howling started that I and others in the private sector felt compelled to remind all of you..we are still borrowing, next year we are paying for water and that the PS should be no where near the top of the queue when alleviation of the current burden comes..

It is a pointless argument as the stats can be skewed but the headline one cannot and the comparison with other countries cannot...

Lets just leave it there shall we..there will be no pay rises in the next couple of years above increments and rightly so.

Mod: Poster banned for continuous use of "beards", despite an earlier card, which is specifically prohibited in the charter.

gazzer

antoobrien wrote: »

The same is true of the private sector, the higher rates are to compensate for the non-permanent nature of the position.

There is a MASSIVE difference though even taking the 'non permanent nature'. I will give my area as an example.

Civil Service IT Staff are getting a salary of between €25,000 to €62,000 (Depending on Grade and length of service)

The salary scale for the contractors is €110,000 to €130,000.

These contracts are for 18 months with an option to extend. As somebody who is responsible for drafting the tenders and evaluating them for contractor staff I can 100% say that we have had the same contractors for the last 6 years. When we go to tender we get a LOT of expressions of interest but when it comes to the actual applications come in we are lucky if we get 2. From feedback we have gotten the reason for the lack of responses is because the money been offered is too low.

Myself and other Civil Service IT staff has asked to be trained up to do the work of these contractors. Obviously it is not something you can learn overnight but I have been asking for the last 6 years. One of the contractors gets paid the same as 3 staff at my level and grade. Its crazy the amount of money been spent.

Geuze

The ESRI have studied the public-private wage premium.

Using 2003-2006 data, the premium was found to be between 14-26%.

See here:

https://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2864

https://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20091102110232/WP321.pdf

Geuze

The CSO also did work on this topic, published 2012, using 2009 and 2010 data, see here:

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


This found a wage gap of 10-19% in 2010, with various statistical techniques applied.


Note that for permanent, full-time workers aged between 25-59, the PS premium, after adjusted for the size of the organisation, is 6.1-7.3%

NB: the CSO data does not included the effects of the PRD - Pension Related Deduction, which was substantial.

Geuze

Note that the 7% pay premium found by the CSO in 2010, would have been eliminated by the PRD.

The PRD marginal rates are 0%, 5%, 10%, 10.5%, see below.

The effective rate of PRD on 40k gross is 5.625%, see below.

So with the 2009 PRD and the 2010 pay-cut, the PS pay premium has been reduced to practically zero.



PRD details

First € 15,000 of earnings: exempt
Earnings between € 15,000 and € 20,000: 5%
Earnings between € 20,000 and € 60,000: 10%
Earnings above € 60,000: 10.5%
Based on these currently applicable PRD rates, the amounts of PRD arising at a series of annual pay points up to and including €60,000 are as follows:
Pay of €15,000: No PRD
Pay of €20,000: PRD of €250
Pay of €25,000: PRD of €750
Pay of €30,000: PRD of €1,250
Pay of €35,000: PRD of €1,750
Pay of €40,000: PRD of €2,250
Pay of €45,000: PRD of €2,750
Pay of €50,000: PRD of €3,250
Pay of €55,000: PRD of €3,750
Pay of €60,000: PRD of €4,250

Geuze

The ESRI published more work in Winter 2012.

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RN20120402.pdf

Here they discuss which of the CSO techniques should be used.


They argue that one of the CSO results is more accurate, so they feel the 2010 average PS pay premium is 17%.

Note that this excludes the effects of the PRD, which would mean a 10% approx pay premium after the PRD.

golfwallah

Geuze wrote: »

The ESRI published more work in Winter 2012.

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/RN20120402.pdf

Here they discuss which of the CSO techniques should be used.


They argue that one of the CSO results is more accurate, so they feel the 2010 average PS pay premium is 17%.

Note that this excludes the effects of the PRD, which would mean a 10% approx pay premium after the PRD.

Good information, Geuze!

But just a few points that need clarification:

My understanding is that the Pension Related Deduction (PRD) was introduced so that PS workers with non-contributory pension arrangements would have to start contributing towards the cost of providing their pensions.

Most private sector workers were already contributing towards the cost of their pensions, in firms that had such schemes or providing 100% for their own pensions in firms that didn't have schemes.

So, unless I can be convinced otherwise and although I accept that the PRD was a new charge on Public Service workers, I don't see the need to make any adjustment in the pay differential because of it.

Perhaps you may be double counting here?

Geuze

golfwallah wrote: »

Good information, Geuze!

My understanding is that the Pension Related Deduction (PRD) was introduced so that PS workers with non-contributory pension arrangements would have to start contributing towards the cost of providing their pensions.

Public servants pay 6.5% pension conts, and always have done.

(You may be thinking about the 30,000 civil servants, their pension is non-contributory, they just pay 1.5% for the spouses and children scheme)

On top of the 6.5%, all PS workers, including civil servants, now pay the PRD, with no extra benefits at all. The marginal pension cont rate is now 17% for many PS staff.

You can call it an extra pension contribution, or you can call it a pay-cut, or a specific tax on the PS, either way it's more deductions, and less net pay, with no benefits.


Some fools in the media say that PS staff don't pay for their pensions - there has always been a staff 6.5% contribution, before the PRD.

golfwallah

Geuze wrote: »

Public servants pay 6.5% pension conts, and always have done.

(You may be thinking about the 30,000 civil servants, their pension is non-contributory, they just pay 1.5% for the spouses and children scheme)

On top of the 6.5%, all PS workers, including civil servants, now pay the PRD, with no extra benefits at all. The marginal pension cont rate is now 17% for many PS staff.

You can call it an extra pension contribution, or you can call it a pay-cut, or a specific tax on the PS, either way it's more deductions, and less net pay, with no benefits.


Some fools in the media say that PS staff don't pay for their pensions - there has always been a staff 6.5% contribution, before the PRD.

Thanks for clarifying that, Geuze.

The marginal pension contribution rate for some PS staff is now very high - but there are indeed very real benefits from having a guaranteed PS pension that keeps pace with pay rises!

I wish I had such a pension and so do many more who are not in the PS!

Sheldons Brain

golfwallah wrote:

My understanding is that the Pension Related Deduction (PRD) was introduced so that PS workers with non-contributory pension arrangements would have to start contributing towards the cost of providing their pensions.

This isn't really accurate. Pre '95 persons who do not pay pension contributions have lower salary scales, so their situation is not hugely different except in an accounting sense. The PRD was mostly a pay cut at a time before an absolute pay cut was thought acceptable. Its character is clear because it is payable on payments that are not pensionable.

golfwallah wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that, Geuze.

The marginal pension contribution rate for some PS staff is now very high - but there are indeed very real benefits from having a guaranteed PS pension that keeps pace with pay rises!

I wish I had such a pension and so do many more who are not in the PS!

Keeping pace with pay rises might have had some benefit in the 70s, but is not notable in an era of deflation.

Geuze

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This isn't really accurate. Pre '95 persons who do not pay pension contributions have lower salary scales, so their situation is not hugely different except in an accounting sense. The PRD was mostly a pay cut at a time before an absolute pay cut was thought acceptable. Its character is clear because it is payable on payments that are not pensionable.
.

Some confusion here.

Pre 95 staff do not pay full-rate PRSI.

They do pay pension conts.

Teachers, etc. have paid 6.5% pension conts for decades.


Exceptions: civil servants and a few other groups have non-contributory occupational pensions, paying just 1.5%.

barneystinson

Geuze wrote: »

Some confusion here.

Pre 95 staff do not pay full-rate PRSI.

They do pay pension conts.

Teachers, etc. have paid 6.5% pension conts for decades.


Exceptions: civil servants and a few other groups have non-contributory occupational pensions, paying just 1.5%.

What civil servants are they? I'm post-95 civil servant and I pay 6.5%.

As for Golfwallah's point about the PS pension, in most very large private sector organisations there are occupational schemes, and generally the rmployer's contribution is somewhere between 1 and 2 times the employee's.

I havent read the earlier linked material but I would expect that this has been factored in if as you mentioned the data has been controlled for organisation size..?

Geuze

golfwallah wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that, Geuze.

The marginal pension contribution rate for some PS staff is now very high - but there are indeed very real benefits from having a guaranteed PS pension that keeps pace with pay rises!

I wish I had such a pension and so do many more who are not in the PS!

It is a good pension, yes.

I'm not sure if it's guaranteed to rise in line with pay.

That's what happened in the past, yes, but that's not law, AFAIK.

I *think* the Govt are free to break the link between pension rises and payrises, even for current pensioners.

Godge

Geuze wrote: »

It is a good pension, yes.

I'm not sure if it's guaranteed to rise in line with pay.

That's what happened in the past, yes, but that's not law, AFAIK.

I *think* the Govt are free to break the link between pension rises and payrises, even for current pensioners.

The pay cuts broke the link as the cuts in pension were not the same as the cuts in pay.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the pensions in payment as the pay cuts are restored.

Gumbo

I thought I read a few years back that they have cut the link of all new pensions to any pay rises for that grade in the future!

antoobrien

kceire wrote: »

I thought I read a few years back that they have cut the link of all new pensions to any pay rises for that grade in the future!

For new employees only, status quo ante for existing employees.

The Irish Government has published legislation introducing changes to public service pensions for new entrants. It hopes to save 35% on state annual expenditure on pension schemes by 2050. Key changes mean the calculation of pensions based on ‘final salary’ will end and ‘career averaging’ will be introduced. Post-retirement pension increases will be linked to the consumer price index and the minimum public service pension age will rise to 68, with a maximum retirement age of 70.

Seems to be for 2012 hires.

Riskymove

kceire wrote: »

I thought I read a few years back that they have cut the link of all new pensions to any pay rises for that grade in the future!

the Government had decided to break the link and instead only increase pensions in line with cost of living increases.

However, when they realised this meant they would have to increase pensions in the current climate, they postponed to a future date!

Riskymove

antoobrien wrote: »

Seems to be for 2012 hires.

no the link to pay rises will be cut for everyone

Riskymove

golfwallah wrote: »

Most private sector workers were already contributing towards the cost of their pensions, in firms that had such schemes or providing 100% for their own pensions in firms that didn't have schemes.

without being OTT, if your employer came to you and said that they were gonna make you pay an extra 7% salary towards a pension but that the actual pension you got wouldn't increase.....and oh by the way we won't actually use that 7% to invest in your pension...we'll use it to pay for a new company building......what would you think?