Public sector pay increase

Iwasfrozen

Dustin Refined Flowerbed wrote: »

Rubbish.

My department is suffering from a 'brain drain' to the better paying private sector.

What job is this if you don't mind me asking.

I've worked two jobs to put my children through college, my son is now earning more than I am (he's in the private sector) and my daughter although still in college is working part time chef'ing, her hourly pay rate is equal to mine ~ as a trainee!.

As for redundancies, well we haven't had any however since Christmas we've had eleven whose contracts weren't renewed, some were happy enough about it because they were qualified to go to better paying private sector jobs, some went onto the social.

Personally I could leave and go to a better paying private sector job but I love my job, I rarely have a bad day here in 30 years.

Reading your post I was about to admit this is why a 2% increase across the board is a blunt instrument, because it benefits those who don't need it and doesn't benefit those who do need it enough.

Though when I read your third paragraph it made sense, jobs with good conditions are in demand and naturally would carry a lower wage.

Jawgap

twinytwo wrote: »

Not really, the only difference between then and now is that we couldnt borrow money because no one would give it to us.

We are still borrowing huge amounts of money just to run the country.

We are, and expecting one group of people to bear the brunt of that requirement is unfair.

osarusan

What is your job iwasfrozen if you don't mind me asking?

stefanovich

yellow hen wrote: »

I think it's that's the right approach but it requires a huge culture shift. In my sector, a lot of middle and senior managers are quite weak and I think could not objectively review performance.

You need someone to do it from the top. The weak managers should be retrained or gotten rid of.

Addle

RobertKK wrote: »

I think they should get pay increases, but we can't afford the pensions going into the future, so increase their take home pay but let them use their extra money for a private pension.

It could start with the politicians...their contributions don't cover the cost of their pensions.

I'm a public servant making expensive compulsory contributions to a pension.
I could get better value with a private pension fund. The negative effect on my net pay is making it difficult for me to get a mortgage.
I'd love to have a choice in the matter.

arybvtcw0eolkf

stefanovich wrote: »

Just a crazy thought... How about giving a pay rise based on performance rather than across the board. Might encourage some of them to pull the finger out. And in all fairness 2% is crap. Give 5/6 % to those few doing a good job.

I'd love a pay rise based on performance.

How's this, my pay is based on a seven day working week. However (of course) we rarely work seven days a week. If I work (for example) a Sunday 24 hour shift my allowance (private sector get over time, its called an allowance for me) is €47 before PAYE, USC etc.

Now tell me, do you know ANYONE in the private sector who would work for an over time allowance of €47 for a 24 hour weekend (including holiday weekends) shift?... Not €47 per hour ~ €47 for the entire shift.

stefanovich

Dustin Refined Flowerbed wrote: »

I'd love a pay rise based on performance.

How's this, my pay is based on a seven day working week. However (of course) we rarely work seven days a week. If I work (for example) a Sunday 24 hour shift my allowance (private sector get over time, its called an allowance for me) is €47 before PAYE, USC etc.

Now tell me, do you know ANYONE in the private sector who would work for an over time allowance of €47 for a 24 hour weekend (including holiday weekends) shift?... Not €47 per hour ~ €47 for the entire shift.

I'm in the private sector. I am supposed to work 37.5 hours per week as per my contract. I work 50 hour weeks pretty much every week as does everyone else. No overtime. This is the culture, no one is asking us or forcing us to do this, it's choice because we care about and enjoy the work and want to progress our careers. On the other hand I have gotten an increase year on year for the last 5 years. The worst being 4%.

Jawgap

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm in the private sector. I am supposed to work 37.5 hours per week as per my contract. I work 50 hour weeks pretty much every week as does everyone else. No overtime. This is the culture, no one is asking us or forcing us to do this, it's choice because we care about and enjoy the work and want to progress our careers. On the other hand I have gotten an increase year on year for the last 5 years. The worst being 4%.

......except in the PS there are jobs where if you tell your boss to go stick it, or decide not to show up for an awkward shift, you don't just get fired, it potentially costs you your liberty.

Jawgap

mikemac1 wrote: »

The military has never been a well paying job. Pay rates are horribly low. A benefit is getting the pension and getting out after 21 years service. You can be out in your forties. If you join as a teenager you have your 21 years service by 38 even!

And then you return to education or do something else, whatever you like.

Yeah, 21 years service in conditions that are rarely family friendly and occasionally downright dangerous.

Plus, the job 'interview' isn't exactly a walk in the park.

arybvtcw0eolkf

stefanovich wrote: »

I'm in the private sector. I am supposed to work 37.5 hours per week as per my contract. I work 50 hour weeks pretty much every week as does everyone else. No overtime. This is the culture, no one is asking us or forcing us to do this, it's choice because we care about and enjoy the work and want to progress our careers. On the other hand I have gotten an increase year on year for the last 5 years. The worst being 4%.

Re-read what I posted. I work TWO jobs, I'm not a stranger to working in the private sector

And without exception each and every private sector job I've worked the employee's were the greatest shower of inefficient whinging pack of wasters I've ever chanced across.

This thing that's thrown around about inffficiency being dealt with harshly in the private sector is more rubbish.. what with verbal, warnings, written warnings etc it as hard to sack a lazy bollox in the private sector as it is anywhere else so I don't want to read any of that ol' rubbish from anyone either.

byhookorbycrook

RobertKK wrote: »

I think they should get pay increases, but we can't afford the pensions going into the future, so increase their take home pay but let them use their extra money for a private pension.

It could start with the politicians...their contributions don't cover the cost of their pensions.

Younger teachers will now pay more into their pension funds over their lifetimes than they will get out. I'd be quite happy to have had the choice to pay my own pension, I've been paying it since I was 20. Many private sector workers wait until their mid-30s to start a pension ,public sector don't have a choice.

he report also points out that under new government pension plans, teachers from 2011, teachers will pay more into the pension scheme than they will get out. This will mean future teachers funding the entire cost of their pensions."

http://www.into.ie/ROI/NewsEvents/PressReleases/PressReleases2011/TeachersPensions2311/Title,18927,en.php

stimpson

Gebgbegb wrote: »

But thats the thing, I presume you were made redundant as the demand wasnt there. Its not as if the demand in hospitals or other public services has gone down during the recession. Would you be happier if some nurses lost their jobs.

I was made redundant because the company decided to relocate jobs to China and Spain. There's plenty of demand for my skills and I was back in work very quickly. No nurse in the PS has to worry about redundancy. Surely their job security should be reflected in their salary. If things were so much better in the private sector then they would move by the dozen, but for some reason that isn't happening.

All this talk of contracts not renewed is a red herring. I've worked on contract several times and that's the deal. Nothing special about the PS there. At the end of the day there have been no forced redundancies in the PS, but hundreds of thousands in the private sector.

stefanovich

Dustin Refined Flowerbed wrote: »

Re-read what I posted. I work TWO jobs, I'm not a stranger to working in the private sector

And without exception each and every private sector job I've worked the employee's were the greatest shower of inefficient whinging pack of wasters I've ever chanced across.

This thing that's thrown around about inffficiency being dealt with harshly in the private sector is more rubbish.. what with verbal, warnings, written warnings etc it as hard to sack a lazy bollox in the private sector as it is anywhere else so I don't want to read any of that ol' rubbish from anyone either.

Just anecdotal evidence from my own company but they have fairly high standards and the management would not tolerate idleness.

I am sure idleness is rife in the private sector too but performance based rewards make the most sense in all cases.

arybvtcw0eolkf

mikemac1 wrote: »

The military has never been a well paying job. Pay rates are horribly low. A benefit is getting the pension and getting out after 21 years service. You can be out in your forties. If you join as a teenager you have your 21 years service by 38 even!

And then you return to education or do something else, whatever you like.

Jeeze, more rubbish.

You're talking about pre-1994 contracts.

Since '94 you must meet certain criteria ie between five year contracts you MUST get promoted, and you MUST serve oversea's (yes someone elses war & misery) to meet the requirements of your contract (there's a lot more involved, I'm just giving two of the main points).

There are many who'll serve in places like Syria who will come back to no jobs.. Unfortunately we weren't involved in enough wars to keep the troops busy with oversea's service.

Tell a Dunnes Stores worker 'Oh you want another contract ~ tell you what head over to Syria for six months, and if you can do that twice we'll give careful consideration to renewing your contract!.

cocker5

Dustin Refined Flowerbed wrote: »

I'd love a pay rise based on performance.

How's this, my pay is based on a seven day working week. However (of course) we rarely work seven days a week. If I work (for example) a Sunday 24 hour shift my allowance (private sector get over time, its called an allowance for me) is €47 before PAYE, USC etc.

Now tell me, do you know ANYONE in the private sector who would work for an over time allowance of €47 for a 24 hour weekend (including holiday weekends) shift?... Not €47 per hour ~ €47 for the entire shift.

Actually I hate to point out not all private sector worker get paid over time! That's a myth! I know lots of people and their core working hours are 9-6.. But the work min 8-8 min each day and dont take breaks .. And eat lunch at their desk.. It's expected in the private sector in alot of jobs - myself included.
So they are doing three hours per day over time so 15 hours per week working for free., it's a reality I'm Afraid!

Overtime what's that?

as_mo_bhosca

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is an over supply of teachers atm. We don't need to attract more people to that sector.


Pretty short term thinking. What I mean is, what calibre of candidate will be attracted to a job capped at 45k after 40+ years of service? You won't have any supply of teachers at that rate.

osarusan

stefanovich wrote: »

J

I am sure idleness is rife in the private sector too but performance based rewards make the most sense in all cases.

Somebody pointed out earlier that there are jobs in the public sector that don't easily lend themselves to performance related pay. Fireman was one example given.

arybvtcw0eolkf

cocker5 wrote: »

Actually I hate to point out not all private sector worker get paid over time! That's a myth! I know lots of people and their core working hours are 9-6.. But the work min 8-8 min each day and dont take breaks .. And eat lunch at their desk.. It's expected in the private sector in alot of jobs - myself included.
So they are doing three hours per day over time so 15 hours per week working for free., it's a reality I'm Afraid!

Overtime what's that?

Watch this little trick, watch.... (quoting myself here)

Re-read what I posted. I work TWO jobs, I'm not a stranger to working in the private sector

Its called reading a thread man, read the fecking thing before making foolish replies to me.

mikemac1

Dustin Refined Flowerbed wrote: »

Jeeze, more rubbish.

You're talking about pre-1994 contracts.

Since '94 you must meet certain criteria ie between five year contracts you MUST get promoted,

If I'm wrong I'll say it

My only knowledge of military contracts comes from the many ex DF guys I've met as taxi drivers who seem happy to chat away about their experiences. I've never seen a contract and I never will

I've heard 21 years a lot. And now I stand corrected

Iwasfrozen

as_mo_bhosca wrote: »

Pretty short term thinking. What I mean is, what calibre of candidate will be attracted to a job capped at 45k after 40+ years of service? You won't have any supply of teachers at that rate.

Quite a lot. Given the working conditions I don't believe a cap at 45-50k will lead to a shortage of teachers.

Jawgap

cocker5 wrote: »

Actually I hate to point out not all private sector worker get paid over time! That's a myth! I know lots of people and their core working hours are 9-6.. But the work min 8-8 min each day and dont take breaks .. And eat lunch at their desk.. It's expected in the private sector in alot of jobs - myself included.
So they are doing three hours per day over time so 15 hours per week working for free., it's a reality I'm Afraid!

Overtime what's that?

I know when I was in the PS I never got overtime. My average working week, net of breaks and travelling, in 2013 was 43 hours and was probably closer to 60 if you included travelling.

Now I'm paid for every hour I work or travel, and have the potential to earn bonuses.

byhookorbycrook

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Quite a lot. Given the working conditions I don't believe a cap at 45-50k will lead to a shortage of teachers.

I very much doubt you would get anyone to work as a principal in a 60 teacher school for that kind of money.

smurgen

scary wrote: »

This is why alot of them are angry at the PS, their private sector bosses are riding them over a barrel for a promise.

It's a business reality.the company didn't progress.when the business progresses and makes a profit I'll have my hand out.this is how the real world works.money doesn't come from thin air.

arybvtcw0eolkf

mikemac1 wrote: »

If I'm wrong I'll say it

My only knowledge of military contracts comes from the many ex DF guys I've met as taxi drivers who seem happy to chat away about their experiences. I've never seen a contract and I never will

I've heard 21 years a lot. And now I stand corrected

Yup, that's the older pre-94 contracts you'll have been told about.

It was a great package, but its gone 21 years now.

But even at that it wasn't a brilliant contract either. The pension brought you only slightly above what you'd have received from the social welfare on termination of contract, but then you aren't entitled to a medical card ~ so lots of guys retired before their 21 year contract because if they had an on going medical condition then they were losing money by taking a pension.

You weren't wrong, just the information you had was out of date.

Mr. teddywinkles

Is this the same as the mortgage arrears article. FG testing the waters on reaction to this for votes :rolleyes:

Peregrine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That... doesn't make any sense. Statistics don't have to be true for every case in order to be a fact. If I say the fertility rate in Ireland is 1.99 that is a fact but not only is it not true for every woman, it's not true for any woman.

Similarly public sector wages in Ireland are higher than they are in the private sector taking into account education and training needed to carry out the job. But that doesn't mean it's true for every case.

Get it now?

You're right. I didn't read the previous posts. Apologies.

To Elland Back

Dustin Refined Flowerbed wrote: »

Rubbish.

My department is suffering from a 'brain drain' to the better paying private sector.
.

So the talented and capable go elsewhere, leaving those with fewer options behind to run the Department. With a recruiting embargo, you think giving the remaining personnel a pay rise sorts the problem?

not yet

Specialun wrote: »

This made me LOL

You're easily amused so..

smurgen

Dustin Refined Flowerbed wrote: »

Yup, that's the older pre-94 contracts you'll have been told about.

It was a great package, but its gone 21 years now.

But even at that it wasn't a brilliant contract either. The pension brought you only slightly above what you'd have received from the social welfare on termination of contract, but then you aren't entitled to a medical card ~ so lots of guys retired before their 21 year contract because if they had an on going medical condition then they were losing money by taking a pension.

You weren't wrong, just the information you had was out of date.

I'd argue fire services and military are underpaid and teacher are overpaid.that said the total spend on education sound be sustained while I see no need why the total spend on military should increase as a % of gdp.

blackcard

To Elland Back wrote: »

So the talented and capable go elsewhere, leaving those with fewer options behind to run the Department. With a recruiting embargo, you think giving the remaining personnel a pay rise sorts the problem?

But if they got. a pay rise, they wouldn't go elsewhere