Proposed Public sector pay rises

Jawgap

Kangoo Man wrote: »

In my view the army were always underpaid in Ireland, so you'll have no disagreement with me there. There is a wide range of jobs in the public service, some are very well paid and some aren't. I read last year that 371 secondary teachers earned over €100k pa, even after the cuts, with 5 months off per year, that sounds like a well paid job to me...

You read wrong - no such story appeared last year.

It appeared in 2013 - and again you are quoting a very selective and prejudiced fashion....glossing over this bit

The 371 can only be school principals, who receive a special allowance linked to the size of their school, on top of their basic salary.

creedp

Kangoo Man wrote: »

Is that the best you can do, personal attacks?

Why are you attacking the person and not the ball, is it because you are trying to defend the indefensible and have no other option but to resort to personal attacks?

According to the Irish Time 25 August 2015, average weekly pay in the public sector is €919 per week, while average pay in the private sector is €622 per week.

Can you explain this disparity, without getting personal...

and here was I thinking I was giving you a complement.

The thing about averages is that they are notoriously defficient in comparing 2 very disparate populations. Well paid private sector employees must be very glad that a significant element of their sector, most notably workers in the hospitality sector, are so poorly paid so they can blather on about how averge private sector pay is so low. I wonder is the company audi in the average figure .. seems to be the toy of choice for brand obsessed but on average poorly paid private sector management grade staff in these harsh econmic times. On the flip side the inclusion of semi-state workers who are, on average, paid more than the average PS has the opposite impact on the average PS pay. This can be frustrating as pension levy, croke park, haddington road cuts was not applied to their salaries. However, keep on banging the average pay drum .. its has some serious currency ...

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

You read wrong - no such story appeared last year.

It appeared in 2013 - and again you are quoting a very selective and prejudiced fashion....glossing over this bit

Maybe this article is more relevant from April 2012.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/education/1500-teachers-earn-up-to-115k-a-year-189895.html

About 1,500 teachers earn between €85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

"education Minister Ruairi Quinn has repeatedly said he has little choice but to impose cuts to services and school programmes when about 80% of his €8.5bn-plus annual budget is expended on staff pay and pension"

Jawgap

creedp wrote: »

and here was I thinking I was giving you a complement.

The thing about averages is that they are notoriously defficient in comparing 2 very disparate populations. Well paid private sector employees must be very glad that a significant element of their sector, most notably workers in the hospitality sector, are so poorly paid so they can blather on about how averge private sector pay is so low. I wonder is the company audi in the average figure .. seems to be the toy of choice for brand obsessed but on average poorly paid private sector management grade staff in these harsh econmic times. On the flip side the inclusion of semi-state workers who are, on average, paid more than the average PS has the opposite impact on the average PS pay. This can be frustrating as pension levy, croke park, haddington road cuts was not applied to their salaries. However, keep on banging the average pay drum .. its has some serious currency ...

The CSO report referred to in the article was this one (the regularly issued quarterly earning report)...

Earnings and Labour Costs Quarterly - Q1 2014 (Final) Q2 2014 (Preliminary Estimates)

chopper6

OMD wrote: »

Maybe this article is more relevant from April 2012.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/education/1500-teachers-earn-up-to-115k-a-year-189895.html

About 1,500 teachers earn between €85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

"education Minister Ruairi Quinn has repeatedly said he has little choice but to impose cuts to services and school programmes when about 80% of his €8.5bn-plus annual budget is expended on staff pay and pension"

A three year old article.

Nice find.

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

Maybe this article is more relevant from April 2012.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/education/1500-teachers-earn-up-to-115k-a-year-189895.html

About 1,500 teachers earn between €85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

"education Minister Ruairi Quinn has repeatedly said he has little choice but to impose cuts to services and school programmes when about 80% of his €8.5bn-plus annual budget is expended on staff pay and pension"

Well then get your quals and get in there......

Look, you can even get your Dip/HDip online - http://hiberniacollege.com/ - AIB will even loan you the money.

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

Well then get your quals and get in there......

Look, you can even get your Dip/HDip online - http://hiberniacollege.com/ - AIB will even loan you the money.

Why this constant stupid reply from those supporting public sector workers? It is quite pathetic. As is Chopper6 reply above. Either address the post or don't post.

Using the same logic you and others are using, why aren't all public sector workers managers in Aldi/Lidl? 60k a year plus an Audi.

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

Why this constant stupid reply from those supporting public sector workers? It is quite pathetic. As is Chopper6 reply above. Either address the post or don't post.

Using the same logic you and others are using, why aren't all public sector workers managers in Aldi/Lidl? 60k a year plus an Audi.

Well @Kangoo Man asked the following question

Kangoo Man wrote: »

If Aldi/Lidl management jobs are so "cushy", why isn't there a queue of public servants trying to get in them, maybe it's because...

etc
etc
..

So I'll ask the reciprocal - if teaching is such a cushy number why isn't there an overwhelming number of people signing up to get their Dip/HDip online?

Have you ever applied for a job in the PS?

And I can't speak for anyone else, but for a long time I measured success not by my salary but by other metrics (until the salary differential became silly to ignore) - then I left for more than I was on in the PS......

........and yes, I took a company car - not an Audi, although it was the first one I was offered and the fleet management company thought it a bit weird I didn't want one.

Geuze

OMD wrote: »

Maybe this article is more relevant from April 2012.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/education/1500-teachers-earn-up-to-115k-a-year-189895.html

About 1,500 teachers earn between €85,000 and €115,000 a year, Department of Education figures have revealed.

"education Minister Ruairi Quinn has repeatedly said he has little choice but to impose cuts to services and school programmes when about 80% of his €8.5bn-plus annual budget is expended on staff pay and pension"

These are all principals.

If you manage 50 staff and 500 students, I think you deserve 100k in a job with long hours.

creedp

OMD wrote: »

Why this constant stupid reply from those supporting public sector workers? It is quite pathetic. As is Chopper6 reply above. Either address the post or don't post.

Using the same logic you and others are using, why aren't all public sector workers managers in Aldi/Lidl? 60k a year plus an Audi.

I have clear a recollection of private sector supporters regularly [helpfully] advising the PS to move into the private sector if they weren't happy with their pay cuts .. so I'm sure there's no serious problem with the PS advising private sector workers accordingly. We're all in this together after all ..

Godge

noodler wrote: »

I love it when people put words in my mouth.

Cheers.

Regardless, I wouldn't go down the route of implying the ALDI/LIDL jobs are soft touches, from what I hear, you are worked to the bone for the money particularly given the longer hours as standard.

Probably about half the hours of a junior doctor and a tenth of the training required.

Godge

Kangoo Man wrote: »

In my view the army were always underpaid in Ireland, so you'll have no disagreement with me there. There is a wide range of jobs in the public service, some are very well paid and some aren't. I read last year that 371 secondary teachers earned over €100k pa, even after the cuts, with 5 months off per year, that sounds like a well paid job to me...

Think you are wrong on that but put up a link.

The principals of the largest post-primary schools would probably just about get to 100k, but if they get three to four weeks off a year, they are doing well. If they work less than 55-60 hours a week they are doing well. First into school, last out of it, back for BOM, PTA and other evening meetings, everything from a HR manager to a social worker, project manager to a cleaner, the life of a post-primary principal is not an easy one.

Godge

Jawgap wrote: »

The CSO report referred to in the article was this one (the regularly issued quarterly earning report)...

Earnings and Labour Costs Quarterly - Q1 2014 (Final) Q2 2014 (Preliminary Estimates)

From the small print:

"Changes in the composition of employees in a given sector or group has an effect on the average levels of earnings and paid hours over time. For example, if the proportion of part-time employees increases within a sector then it would be expected that the average weekly earnings and paid hours would fall in that sector even if the hourly pay rates were unchanged. Also, estimated averages do not reflect differences in characteristics of the job or the employees, and since EHECS collects aggregate data from each enterprise it is not possible to correct for such differences using EHECS data."

To explain that to those who mightn't get it. If the public sector outsources low-paid cleaning services, then the average pay in the public sector goes up while the average pay in the private sector goes down.

Does this now mean that nurses are suddenly overpaid compared to cleaners? No.

As I keep telling you all, THERE IS NO UP-TO-DATE CORRECT AND UNBIASED DATA OR STUDIES COMPARING SIMILAR JOBS IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR.

Why people keep linking to stuff that is easily debunked baffles me. The argument about public sector pay is meaningless until we have decent data.

Geuze

Kangoo Man wrote: »

Is that the best you can do, personal attacks?

Why are you attacking the person and not the ball, is it because you are trying to defend the indefensible and have no other option but to resort to personal attacks?

According to the Irish Time 25 August 2015, average weekly pay in the public sector is €919 per week, while average pay in the private sector is €622 per week.

Can you explain this disparity, without getting personal...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92494366&postcount=1201

Geuze

THESE links won't work as I copied the post from another forum:

Some points on the public-private wage premium:

(1) The ESRI have studied the public-private wage premium.

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

See here:

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publica...0232/WP321.pdf


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

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/rel...s_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.


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

Godge

Geuze wrote: »

THESE links won't work as I copied the post from another forum:

Some points on the public-private wage premium:

(1) The ESRI have studied the public-private wage premium.

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

See here:

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publica...0232/WP321.pdf


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

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/rel...s_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.


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

They also wouldn't take account of the 2% p.a. payrises seen in the private sector since 2012, nor the HRA pay cuts in the public sector.

It is not clear whether the data looked at hours worked or annual leave which were increased and decreased respectively in the HRA meaning hourly rates in the public sector dropped.

The pay premium may well be negative given the more recent changes.

OMD

Geuze wrote: »

THESE links won't work as I copied the post from another forum:

Some points on the public-private wage premium:

(1) The ESRI have studied the public-private wage premium.

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

See here:

http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publica...0232/WP321.pdf


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

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/rel...s_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.


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

Fascinating stuff. Public servants got a pay cut so there is now no difference in pay. Lucky there was no cuts in the Private sector or else your figures would be totally wrong.

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. You imply it is less than this.

Why should the data include pension contributions for Public sector but not private sector? Private sector employee would have to pay substantially more to get the same benefits as public sector employee so if you were to include pension benefits the Public Sector premium would increase not decrease.

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

Fascinating stuff. Public servants got a pay cut so there is now no difference in pay. Lucky there was no cuts in the Private sector or else your figures would be totally wrong.

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. You imply it is less than this.

Why should the data include pension contributions for Public sector but not private sector? Private sector employee would have to pay substantially more to get the same benefits as public sector employee so if you were to include pension benefits the Public Sector premium would increase not decrease.

You can't talk about either the private or public sectors as if either is a single homogenous mass.

Within each there are groups who've seen cuts to varying degrees and increases also - the CSO earnings report which people like to rely on when having a pop at the PS illustrates that point.

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

You can't talk about either the private or public sectors as if either is a single homogenous mass.

Within each there are groups who've seen cuts to varying degrees and increases also - the CSO earnings report which people like to rely on when having a pop at the PS illustrates that point.

I was replying to a post by Geuze. He was the one lumping everyone in together. Why direct this post at me not him?

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

I was replying to a post by Geuze. He was the one lumping everyone in together. Why direct this post at me not him?

I was responding to your point that

Public servants got a pay cut so there is now no difference in pay. Lucky there was no cuts in the Private sector or else your figures would be totally wrong.

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

I was responding to your point that

Because he brought it up. This is a typical post of yours I'm afraid. Trying to take the high ground but posting nothing of substance. At least Geuze and Godge are making reasoned arguments. Even if I may disagree with them I appreciate they are trying to make arguments. What argument are you trying to make?

Jawgap

OMD wrote: »

Because he brought it up. This is a typical post of yours I'm afraid. Trying to take the high ground but posting nothing of substance. At least Geuze and Godge are making reasoned arguments. Even if I may disagree with them I appreciate they are trying to make arguments. What argument are you trying to make?

Oh dear......wounded by your cutting rhetoric........

I think I've posted plenty of argument here, linked to appropriate external sources.

But continue in this vein, if you wish.......

Kangoo Man

Godge wrote: »

From the small print:

"Changes in the composition of employees in a given sector or group has an effect on the average levels of earnings and paid hours over time. For example, if the proportion of part-time employees increases within a sector then it would be expected that the average weekly earnings and paid hours would fall in that sector even if the hourly pay rates were unchanged. Also, estimated averages do not reflect differences in characteristics of the job or the employees, and since EHECS collects aggregate data from each enterprise it is not possible to correct for such differences using EHECS data."

To explain that to those who mightn't get it. If the public sector outsources low-paid cleaning services, then the average pay in the public sector goes up while the average pay in the private sector goes down.

Does this now mean that nurses are suddenly overpaid compared to cleaners? No.

As I keep telling you all, THERE IS NO UP-TO-DATE CORRECT AND UNBIASED DATA OR STUDIES COMPARING SIMILAR JOBS IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR.

Why people keep linking to stuff that is easily debunked baffles me. The argument about public sector pay is meaningless until we have decent data.

Is a cleaner not entitled to a decent living wage?

Maybe we should set up slums on the outskirts of Dublin for cleaners, fast food workers, supermarket workers and other low paid workers.

We could 'let them eat cake' or 'pay them in beans' and so exclude them from official private sector figures, as they're being very inconvenient by bringing down the average pay figures...

Godge

Kangoo Man wrote: »

Is a cleaner not entitled to a decent living wage?

Maybe we should set up slums on the outskirts of Dublin for cleaners, fast food workers, supermarket workers and other low paid workers.

We could 'let them eat cake' or 'pay them in beans' and so exclude them from official private sector figures, as they're being very inconvenient by bringing down the average pay figures...

That is a completely separate question.

The fact is that cleaners are paid less than teachers or nurses, whether that is right it another thing. I was explaining a mathematical point.

If you are interested in how discrimination affects pay gaps between the public and private sectors, there is a study from the mid-2000s that found that a significant portion of the gap between the two sectors is because the private sector pays women less than men for the same job while the public sector treats them equally. Kudos to the public sector on that one.

Letree

Godge wrote: »

They also wouldn't take account of the 2% p.a. payrises seen in the private sector since 2012, nor the HRA pay cuts in the public sector.

Nor the fact that the semi states are paid better than the regular public service.

barneystinson

Hehe, gas how everyone has loads of time all during the working week to post, up on their high horses about perceived productivity etc. and by tea time on Friday evening interest trails off over a cliff... says everything you need to know really!

Mardy Bum

Kangoo Man wrote: »

In my view the army were always underpaid in Ireland, so you'll have no disagreement with me there. There is a wide range of jobs in the public service, some are very well paid and some aren't. I read last year that 371 secondary teachers earned over €100k pa, even after the cuts, with 5 months off per year, that sounds like a well paid job to me...

I don't think it would be that high now as most of those have retired but those are secondary principals with over 40 full time teachers who also have worked at least 25 years full time and would have at least 650 students. Most principals work at least 12 hours a day from my experience and have to deal with some utterly horrendous situations. Principals deserve their money.

sbkenn

chopper6 wrote: »

They're not published..anymore than they are in the private sector.

What the private sector get paid really is not our concern ... except when it the substantially state owned banks, or the banks prior to the crash. Those guys were so busy chasing their bonuses that they neglected their core function, and should be charged with farud
What the public sector gets paid comes straight out of our taxes, and don't start on again about the ones that more-than-pay-their-way, as their pay is guaranteed regardless of what they do.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

If you are interested in how discrimination affects pay gaps between the public and private sectors, there is a study from the mid-2000s that found that a significant portion of the gap between the two sectors is because the private sector pays women less than men for the same job while the public sector treats them equally. Kudos to the public sector on that one.

Of course all is not always as it seems on the surface. It is known that male academics climb the ladder faster than females in universities. The conventional wisdom is that universities are old boys clubs looking after themselves and the misogynist department heads actively keep female academics down. While some of this is certainly true and there is an disappointing lack of high level female academics in universities, several studies have shown other causes for the misalignment in qualifications and senior positions. Studies have shown that female academic are less likely to actively seek out collaborations, are less likely to push their publications in high impact journals, are less likely to cite themselves or push their colleagues to cite their work. Whereas male colleagues set-up citations circles (you cite me, i'll cite you) females are less likely to do the same.

barneystinson

sarumite wrote: »

Of course all is not always as it seems on the surface. It is known that male academics climb the ladder faster than females in universities. The conventional wisdom is that universities are old boys clubs looking after themselves and the misogynist department heads actively keep female academics down. While some of this is certainly true and there is an disappointing lack of high level female academics in universities, several studies have shown other causes for the misalignment in qualifications and senior positions. Studies have shown that female academic are less likely to actively seek out collaborations, are less likely to push their publications in high impact journals, are less likely to cite themselves or push their colleagues to cite their work. Whereas male colleagues set-up citations circles (you cite me, i'll cite you) females are less likely to do the same.

That's genuinely very interesting, but of very little relevance here surely?