Civil Service New Entrant

Tidyweb

Do all new entrants into the civil service have to start on the bottom pay level in that grade.

Is this negotiable.

Donald73

As far as I know yes all new entrants start at the bottom pay scale. I entered and was successful at the recent Clerical Officer competition for Civil/Public Service and the starting salary was stated on the paperwork from what I recall, and the pay scales can also be found online. I don't know of any incidences where someone started on a higher scale (not to say that this could not happen) and personally I would not imagine that the starting salary would be in any way negotiable. If it was and say you negotiated an extra 1000euro a year and mentioned this to your other starting colleagues (and existing ones) the queue to HR to ask for the same would be endless. The scale is there and is there for a reason and would be set in stone as far as I know. The salary does go up yearly (think it is yearly) in increments though.

yenom

The union has negotiated on your behalf.

dar100

Have increments not been stopped?

Zipppy

Tidyweb wrote: »

Do all new entrants into the civil service have to start on the bottom pay level in that grade.

Is this negotiable.

No unless immediately prior to joining CS you're a serving public servant ( eg semi state, state body) then there may be options for incremental credit...

dar100 wrote: »

Have increments not been stopped?

Nope just deferred...see below from IMPACT website..
Are my increments frozen?
Management wanted to freeze all increments until the end of 2016, but unions negotiated a better outcome. In summary:

Public servants who earn less than €35,000 a year receive their next increment when it falls due and then wait 15 months (rather than 12) before any following increment is paid.
Public servants who earn between €35,000 and €65,000 receive their next increment when it falls due, then wait 15 months (rather than 12) before any following increment is paid, and then 15 months (rather than 12) before the following increment is paid.
Public servants who earn between €35,000 and €65,000 a year, and who are now at the top of their scale, forfeit six days leave, or the cash equivalent. This is not a permanent reduction in annual leave entitlement; it’s a once-off loss of six day’s leave spread over a three year period.
Public servants who earn between €35,000 and €65,000, and reach the top of the scale following a second increment paid during the lifetime of the agreement, incur a once-off loss of three days leave or the cash equivalent. This is not a permanent loss of leave.
Those on salaries (inclusive of allowances in the nature of pay) between €65,000 and the maximum of the civil service principal (higher) scale (or public service equivalent) of just over €100,000, receive their next increment when it falls due, then wait 18 months (rather than 12) before any following increment is paid, and then 18 months (rather than 12) before the next increment is paid.
Incremental progression is suspended for three years for those on salaries scales starting over €100,000 (inclusive of allowances in the nature of pay).

InReality

I got a few rungs up the ladder. That's x years ago now though, and I'd say for all the new competitions it would be a non-starter.

Tidyweb

Turns out it non negotiable, so new entrants to public service must start on bottom of grade.

If I say no to the job - Public Jobs will offer the job to a lower qualified, less experienced existing civil servant who didn't perform as well at interview - but pay them up to 20K more.

If I take the job I could be doing the same job as a lifelong civil servant on 20K more.

Mad system - stacked to look after their own and penalize new entrants.

Imagine a private sector company refusing to pay previous public servant a fair wage - on the basis that they hadnt worked in private sector before??

dearg lady

Tidyweb wrote: »

Turns out it non negotiable, so new entrants to public service must start on bottom of grade.

If I say no to the job - Public Jobs will offer the job to a lower qualified, less experienced existing civil servant who didn't perform as well at interview - but pay them up to 20K more.

If I take the job I could be doing the same job as a lifelong civil servant on 20K more.

Mad system - stacked to look after their own and penalize new entrants.

Imagine a private sector company refusing to pay previous public servant a fair wage - on the basis that they hadnt worked in private sector before??

I don't understand how you know this person is lower qualified and less experienced? Surely if they would get 20k more, they are quite experienced, having reached the top of the scale!

I do agree the whole scale system is ridiculous though, it's too rigid, no leeway.

Donald73

Tidyweb wrote: »

Turns out it non negotiable, so new entrants to public service must start on bottom of grade.

If I say no to the job - Public Jobs will offer the job to a lower qualified, less experienced existing civil servant who didn't perform as well at interview - but pay them up to 20K more.

If I take the job I could be doing the same job as a lifelong civil servant on 20K more.

Mad system - stacked to look after their own and penalize new entrants.

Imagine a private sector company refusing to pay previous public servant a fair wage - on the basis that they hadnt worked in private sector before??

The bolded bit makes no sense whatsoever. From what I've read of their literature, if successful applicants turn down the job then it gets offered to other applicants from the competition, not necessarily already civil servants but possibly someone employed elsewhere or unemployed and the job would be at the same scale. If someone were able to command an extra 20grand then they're already at top of payscale and would have no interest in the position.

Weall have to start somewhere and new entrants start at the bottom, it's the fair way to everyone IMO.

gerbilgranny

I joined the civil service in 1996 - and although I'd previously been a public servant of a higher grade than Clerical Officer, for 12 years*, I started at the bottom of the scale.

As a married woman, I had to pay high rate tax on my meagre earnings, because that was before the 'increased rateband' was introduced for the second spouse in employment. Because my husband was in the higher tax bracket (just...and that was because he did overtime), I automatically was taxed at the higher rate. I was paying more money to the childminder than I was earning - but because husband worked shift, we didn't have to pay the minder full-time, and I then got work-sharing, which meant my childcare costs were less. It was a tough few years, but I felt I was lucky to have secured employment, and it was a price I had to pay.

I eventually was awarded a few extra increments down the line, when the CPSU won the right for previous public service employment to be reckonable.

It's an employer's market, these days - they can pay whatever rate they choose (within the legal limits) and there will be lots of people only too happy to get the work.

At least it's transparent, and as Donna35 says, if one new entrant decides to refuse the position, the next person on the list will be offered the job.

And it's way better than being on zero hours contracts!

* I resigned from my previous public service post when my second child was born, and was lucky to have been able to spend five years as a housewife. Money was tight, but we were able to manage, and I realise how blessed I was to have been able to spend that time with my children.

Mrs OBumble

donna35 wrote: »

Weall have to start somewhere and new entrants start at the bottom, it's the fair way to everyone IMO.

'Fraid I totally disagree.

I have nearly 20 years civil service experience - but it's outside the EU so doesn't count. If I were to go for a public sector role here, I would start a the bottom of the scale, irrespective of what private-sector or non-EU experience, skills and knowledge I brought to the job.

Not fair. And not even smart - because it ensures that people like me simply won't be working for the public sector in Ireland.


(Ironically, the last major work programme that I was involved in was implementing free early-childhood-education and improving standards through more rigorous licensing and teacher requirements - yes the very same thing that his being done here. So my knowledge and experience is even directly relevant, but still worthless.)

yop

So your experience counts for nothing really then? Bit weird that.

ezra_pound

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

'Fraid I totally disagree.

I have nearly 20 years civil service experience - but it's outside the EU so doesn't count. If I were to go for a public sector role here, I would start a the bottom of the scale, irrespective of what private-sector or non-EU experience, skills and knowledge I brought to the job.

Not fair. And not even smart - because it ensures that people like me simply won't be working for the public sector in Ireland.


(Ironically, the last major work programme that I was involved in was implementing free early-childhood-education and improving standards through more rigorous licensing and teacher requirements - yes the very same thing that his being done here. So my knowledge and experience is even directly relevant, but still worthless.)

You can apply for incremental credit from hr.

Tidyweb

Thanks for the comments.

For people who disagree - the basic point is that if two identically qualified people are offered the same job - there could be a difference of €20K based on who is already a public servant.

In private sector there would be a slight difference due to "knowing the lay of the land" or being able to use existing network and systems - but never a 50% difference.

Basically its another example of the Public Service working for the Public Service, without the benefits of the country at heart.

The main result of this system is ensuring existing Public Servants get more more and more while young or new get very little.

I dont need the job and will not take it - but it is a shame that the Public Service use such an unfair system.

ezra_pound

The public servant needs to have been in the same grade to get the incremental credit. So it's not that much of an advantage. If they apply for a higher paying job they don't get incremental credit either.

How many years experience have you at an equivalent grade in the private sector?

Tidyweb

10 years

Not sure of the point.

But it would be obvious that I would qualify for top of that scale not the bottom if it was a "fair" assessment.

Magellan2015

Tidyweb wrote: »

But it would be obvious that I would qualify for top of that scale not the bottom if it was a "fair" assessment.

Obvious to you at least.

There's most likely hundreds (if not thousands) of equally qualified and experienced candidates for any particular job you might be applying for in the civil/public service. When there's a queue of people out the door to fill those posts, offering you or anyone else a penny more than absolutely necessary (at the cost over time of perhaps hundreds of thousands of euro) seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do.

If you applied for an open competition, then whoever gets the job will have the same starting salary no matter whether they're already a public servant or not UNLESS they're a serving public servant AND already on a higher basic salary than the minimum, in which case their starting salary will be whatever they're currently earning.

If you applied through an open competition, it's also likely that there's another 50 people at least who are on the same panel (unless you're considering the position of Sec Gen or similar) who are considered equally qualified for the job as you, many of whom will be perfectly happy to take the wages and pension

A difficulty with Irish attitudes to wages in my view is that the figure a person considers "fair" or "low" if they're receiving it becomes "grossly overpaid" if it's on someone else's payslip.

If you consider yourself too qualified and experienced for the salary for the position in question, you should apply for a competition for a higher grade, where the €20k extra in starting pay will be built in. Of course, getting to the stage of having the option to turn it down will also be significantly harder....

Kristopherus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

'Fraid I totally disagree.

I have nearly 20 years civil service experience - but it's outside the EU so doesn't count. If I were to go for a public sector role here, I would start a the bottom of the scale, irrespective of what private-sector or non-EU experience, skills and knowledge I brought to the job.

Not fair. And not even smart - because it ensures that people like me simply won't be working for the public sector in Ireland.


(Ironically, the last major work programme that I was involved in was implementing free early-childhood-education and improving standards through more rigorous licensing and teacher requirements - yes the very same thing that his being done here. So my knowledge and experience is even directly relevant, but still worthless.)

The incremental credit for previous experience applies to experience in the public service in another EU country. IIRC this credit was introduced following a decision of the Council of Ministers & the Commission in the mid-nineties. Certainly anyone recruited by the Health Service and who had worked in the PS or CS of another EU country got incremental credits.

kippy

Tidyweb wrote: »

Turns out it non negotiable, so new entrants to public service must start on bottom of grade.

If I say no to the job - Public Jobs will offer the job to a lower qualified, less experienced existing civil servant who didn't perform as well at interview - but pay them up to 20K more.

If I take the job I could be doing the same job as a lifelong civil servant on 20K more.

Mad system - stacked to look after their own and penalize new entrants.

Imagine a private sector company refusing to pay previous public servant a fair wage - on the basis that they hadnt worked in private sector before??

Thats the system all the way up to be fair.
Pay is based on time serverd (generally)

Mrs OBumble

ezra_pound wrote: »

You can apply for incremental credit from hr.

But I wouldn't get it, cos my experience is not in the EU.

For me, it's academic: the interesting jobs aren't in the city where I want to live.

But on a systemic level, the salary-for-time-served approach just makes for a public sector with a high proportion of workers who've never travelled, worked elsewhere or been exposed to different ways of doing things. Effectively people who are adequate for the job, instead of great at it.

And them we wonder why government run things are so badly done overall.

An effective public sector needs some long serving career public servants with deep experience and long memories. But if that's all it has, things get very stagnant.

ezra_pound

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But I wouldn't get it, cos my experience is not in the EU.

For me, it's academic: the interesting jobs aren't in the city where I want to live.

But on a systemic level, the salary-for-time-served approach just makes for a public sector with a high proportion of workers who've never travelled, worked elsewhere or been exposed to different ways of doing things. Effectively people who are adequate for the job, instead of great at it.

And them we wonder why government run things are so badly done overall.

An effective public sector needs some long serving career public servants with deep experience and long memories. But if that's all it has, things get very stagnant.

In fairness this has a kernel of truth in it. The same way as stating that Irish people are all feckless drunkards. You're making a stereotype of a public servant.

You imply that :
" on a systemic level, the salary-for-time-served approach just makes for a public sector with a high proportion of workers who've never travelled, worked elsewhere or been exposed to different ways of doing things. "

Leads to:
"Effectively people who are adequate for the job, instead of great at it."

How is that a viable causation?

How can lack of travel and working in another job make you worse or "not great" at the job you have.
This is the crux of your argument notwithstanding the fact that most civil/public servants under the age of 50 that i can think of have worked elsewhere and travelled.

The stereotype of the civil servant who did the exam in the last year at school and went straight to Dublin and the civil service may have been apt in the 30s or even the 60s but today it's not the norm.

Furthermore and ironically, this very stereotype which you promulgate is fitted by not only undoubtedly the greatest civil servant in the state's history but the Irish man of the 20th century, t.k. Whitaker. He went straight out of secondary school into the service in 1932 without third level education , travel, or work experience.