Clerical officer - Low pay - Dublin

Arcade_Tryer

BoatMad wrote: »

but 60K is not great money after all that , 100K is reasonable good salary after a conventional career

This is quite a ridiculous statement. 60k is well above the average salary in Ireland. And 100k is a huge salary.

Geuze

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This is quite a ridiculous statement. 60k is well above the average salary in Ireland. And 100k is a huge salary.

Average FT earnings are 45k.

The poster did say after a career, ie finishing up on.

Average salary isnt therefore really the comparator

Technocentral

Like London public sector workers, Dublin ones should get an allowance for living in such an expensive city.

uck51js9zml2yt

There are going to be 10000 people retiring from the CS in the next 4 years. jobs which will need to be filled.
My own dept will increase by nearly 100 people in the next year.

Cyrus

FrStone wrote: »

As someone who is a trainee accountant, I started on slightly more than a CO, however after two years I'm earning slightly more than the top salary in the CO scale.

My sick leave is a million times better than the civil service. I get my health insurance paid for.

By the time my contract is up I will be on significantly more than the top of the CO salary scale.

The CO has a better pension than me, but considering a new entrant now only gets a pension based on his average salary - I don't think there will be much of a difference. Especially considering I don't have to pay a pension levy.

yes but you have to perform to earn it, i trained in a big 4, my salary more than double in the 3.5 years i was there and then i got another big bump when i left to goto industry, but more than a few never finished their training contract.

Its not a given that you will earn these sums and you start off on no more

Cyrus

Darkglasses wrote: »

Can you show me a statistic that backs up your claim?

It appears to be well below the average, particularly in Dublin. For example:

http://www.thejournal.ie/graduate-survey-2857721-Jul2016/

http://www.sigmarrecruitment.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Sigmar-Recruitment-Salary-Guide-Ireland-2016.pdf

er the journal article you linked has graduate finance jobs in dublin at 23k on average, that will be a lot lower outside the big 4.

FrStone

Cyrus wrote: »

yes but you have to perform to earn it, i trained in a big 4, my salary more than double in the 3.5 years i was there and then i got another big bump when i left to goto industry, but more than a few never finished their training contract.

Its not a given that you will earn these sums and you start off on no more

Considering something like 80% passed the FAEs last year, it's pretty much guaranteed that you will get the bump in pay. Just make sure not to be in the bottom 20% exam wise.

Cyrus

FrStone wrote: »

Considering something like 80% passed the FAEs last year, it's pretty much guaranteed that you will get the bump in pay. Just make sure not to be in the bottom 20% exam wise.

you need to make it that far, if you have got to the FAE's you should be able to pass them,

its the earlier exams and the working conditions that weed people out

FrStone

Cyrus wrote: »

you need to make it that far, if you have got to the FAE's you should be able to pass them,

its the earlier exams and the working conditions that weed people out

Ah to be very honest, the people who work long hours are the makers of their own destiny. I've always been quite clear to management that I finish at 5.30 except in very rare circumstances. And of course I still end up in the same pay as those who do 50 hour weeks.

You really aren't comparing line with like if you compare being a CO to a trainee accountant.

Listening to some people you'd swear accountants have it very difficult, when the opposite is true in reality.

Darkglasses

Cyrus wrote: »

er the journal article you linked has graduate finance jobs in dublin at 23k on average, that will be a lot lower outside the big 4.

OK, can you find a statistic to back up your original claim?

Cyrus

Darkglasses wrote: »

OK, can you find a statistic to back up your original claim?

but you have already done it?

Cyrus

FrStone wrote: »

Ah to be very honest, the people who work long hours are the makers of their own destiny. I've always been quite clear to management that I finish at 5.30 except in very rare circumstances. And of course I still end up in the same pay as those who do 50 hour weeks.

You really aren't comparing line with like if you compare being a CO to a trainee accountant.

Listening to some people you'd swear accountants have it very difficult, when the opposite is true in reality.

you might end up on the same pay at the end of your training contract but you might want to loosen up on that a little if you want to make proper money in the future.

im not saying you need to work 12 hour days every day but you do need to show flexibility.

anyway not sure where you are training, but big 4 audit can be tough going, i can only speak from my own experience

Arcade_Tryer

Deleted User wrote: »

The poster did say after a career, ie finishing up on.

Average salary isnt therefore really the comparator

In a profession maybe. But for most people, a 60k salary at the end of their career is still a very good prospect.

Technocentral

Arcade_Tryer wrote:

This is quite a ridiculous statement. 60k is well above the average salary in Ireland. And 100k is a huge salary.

You need to be on 100k plus to be "boatmad"!

Technocentral

BoatMad wrote:

the other thing is NO private person can build an effective pension , yet a CS can expect a reasonable one, sure not as good as previously but better then anything in the private sector. You would have to put away nearly a million euros to get an annuity that would pay similar to a CS pension . thats not possible

Everyone should join the PS so.

Arcade_Tryer

Technocentral wrote: »

You need to be on 100k plus to be "boatmad"!

You're gonna need a bigger boat salary!

AndrewJRenko

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Well, I'm not privy to department numbers, but I think it's pretty obvious that there is a large recruitment drive currently happening, and that it will continue for the next few years due to the ensuing retirements. Unless all of these campaigns are just my imagination...just my imagination...just my imagination.

It's meaningless to talk about 'number of campaigns' unless you can talk about numbers of posts and levels of those posts, and the numbers of staff at the lower levels competing for those posts.

Laurie Purple Snorer wrote: »

There are going to be 10000 people retiring from the CS in the next 4 years. jobs which will need to be filled.
My own dept will increase by nearly 100 people in the next year.

What's your source for this figure. There about 20k odd CS staff across all Govt depts at present, and about 12k more CS in other organisations like Revenue. Are you really saying that 1/3 of these are retiring over the next four years?

FrStone wrote: »

The CO has a better pension than me, but considering a new entrant now only gets a pension based on his average salary - I don't think there will be much of a difference. Especially considering I don't have to pay a pension levy.

The CO probably doesn't have a better pension then you. The CO will end up on a marginal pension, just a few quid on top of the standard State pension. Almost any private pension would come out better than this.

BoatMad wrote: »

well yes worth a bit for someone on low pay , of little benefit as you get more money , its really a trick to keep you in the building. All the techies play that game . The food is restaurant quality , but a perk is just that hard to quantify into money

its interesting to have an accrual calculation done on an annuity to say give you 30% of an expected final salary in perpetuity , and what the contributions would be . remember in many cases there is no employer contribution in private employment . The number is actually is staggering and there is a huge huge pensions time bomb coming in the next 2-3 decades . ring a broker and ask whats need, you'll be shocked

the summary is that I think things are " OK " in the broadest sense for a dublin well educated young person from a background that has given them as many supports as possible, it gets hard fast for people without some of those advantages .

BoatMad wrote: »

well yes worth a bit for someone on low pay , of little benefit as you get more money , its really a trick to keep you in the building. All the techies play that game . The food is restaurant quality , but a perk is just that hard to quantify into money

I'd have thought it would be fairly straightforward to quantify, with the Revenue day allowances being a good starting point €14 for half-day 33 for full day.

BoatMad wrote: »

its interesting to have an accrual calculation done on an annuity to say give you 30% of an expected final salary in perpetuity , and what the contributions would be . remember in many cases there is no employer contribution in private employment . The number is actually is staggering and there is a huge huge pensions time bomb coming in the next 2-3 decades . ring a broker and ask whats need, you'll be shocked

Yes, the numbers can be shocking - but don't exaggerate the point about employer contributions in private employment. Any kind of professional employment will offer some employer contribution, often a matching contribution that means you double-your-money investment on day 1.
And when you do your comparison, take into account to risks to public sector pensions from future governments.

BoatMad wrote: »

the fact remains that the average public sector worker is earning more then the average private sector worker

This 'average' comparison is meaningless. YOu might as well say that the 'average' bank employee earns more than the 'average' pub employee. It tells you nothing about how appropriately people are paid or otherwise.

BoatMad wrote: »

the other thing is NO private person can build an effective pension , yet a CS can expect a reasonable one, sure not as good as previously but better then anything in the private sector. You would have to put away nearly a million euros to get an annuity that would pay similar to a CS pension . thats not possible

It is meaningless to throw out a figure like a million without showing what level of salary you're talking about covering.

uck51js9zml2yt

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's your source for this figure. There about 20k odd CS staff across all Govt depts at present, and about 12k more CS in other organisations like Revenue. Are you really saying that 1/3 of these are retiring over the next four years?

My source is the CS.
There are about 30k people in the CS currently. 1/3 approx are retiring in the next 4 years across the CS.

AndrewJRenko

Laurie Purple Snorer wrote: »

My source is the CS.
There are about 30k people in the CS currently. 1/3 approx are retiring in the next 4 years across the CS.

The 30k figure in that article is from 2008. Numbers have changed just a bit since then, with dramatic reductions up to 2013, and some recover in the numbers since then.

What's your source for the 1/3 retiring?

BoatMad

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's meaningless to talk about 'number of campaigns' unless you can talk about numbers of posts and levels of those posts, and the numbers of staff at the lower levels competing for those posts.


What's your source for this figure. There about 20k odd CS staff across all Govt depts at present, and about 12k more CS in other organisations like Revenue. Are you really saying that 1/3 of these are retiring over the next four years?


The CO probably doesn't have a better pension then you. The CO will end up on a marginal pension, just a few quid on top of the standard State pension. Almost any private pension would come out better than this.




I'd have thought it would be fairly straightforward to quantify, with the Revenue day allowances being a good starting point €14 for half-day 33 for full day.

Yes, the numbers can be shocking - but don't exaggerate the point about employer contributions in private employment. Any kind of professional employment will offer some employer contribution, often a matching contribution that means you double-your-money investment on day 1.
And when you do your comparison, take into account to risks to public sector pensions from future governments.

This 'average' comparison is meaningless. YOu might as well say that the 'average' bank employee earns more than the 'average' pub employee. It tells you nothing about how appropriately people are paid or otherwise.

It is meaningless to throw out a figure like a million without showing what level of salary you're talking about covering.

Grade A post secondary teacher employed. Before 2094

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The 30k figure in that article is from 2008. Numbers have changed just a bit since then, with dramatic reductions up to 2013, and some recover in the numbers since then.

What's your source for the 1/3 retiring?

I've worked in processing figures for retirements. Taking the overall number of officers covered by my unit as about 35k if i recall correctly, a figure of about 1500 retirements a year from that was about what i would have observed. That might be a high estimate tbh.

BoatMad

I see my 100k final salary generated a few adverse comments.

My comment was in relation to a AO end salary

A person with the typical qualifications for A0 and experience should really be at a good bit more then 60k by carrear end. If you were to take private industry professionals as a comparison

60 k is a good Salary is not a great one however.

( ted Heath , who was also a famous yachtsman , once described boating as a sport akin to tearing up 50s whilst standing in a cold shower !!!!! )

It really does depend on the AO and the role.

AO can be a Java developer in their mid twenties with aims to project manager and further study. Certainly could expect to hit 100k in a career

Could also be an arts grad in their 40s very happy with their lot. 60k isn't coming looking for too many of those in the open market

doc22

^^^^AOs are doing the work and in departments were they should be an AP before ever reaching the top of the AO grade. And in relation to AO qualification and experience? A basic degree and finish top in an aptitude test is all that's required. Some past and current AO's would get nowhere near 60k with basic arts degrees, they lucked out on aptitude tests and an interview were you have greater then 50% chance in passing.

Calina

doc22 wrote: »

^^^^AOs are doing the work and in departments were they should be an AP before ever reaching the top of the AO grade. And in relation to AO qualification and experience? A basic degree and finish top in an aptitude test is all that's required. Some past and current AO's would get nowhere near 60k with basic arts degrees, they lucked out on aptitude tests and an interview were you have greater then 50% chance in passing.

I think there is a difference between reality and what you think reality is or should be.

Firstly - and I want to reiterate this - we would not be having this conversation if Dublin was not an expensive kip to live in. I say that with the greatest of respect; I lived there between 1999 and 2016. It is an expensive kip. IF you want to pay your civil servants peanuts - which Ireland appears to - then you are going to have to make your rents and housing costs significantly less obnoxiously expensive.

Secondly, I have been through the EO and AO process mainly because I was unemployed when I did EO and because EO didn't pay anywhere near an adequate amount to live on in Dublin when I did AO. I left AO when I got a significantly better paying job outside the country. I moved on fast enough that in neither case had I completed the probation period.

In both the EO and AO competitions, what was notable was that a large number of people coming through both competitions were not recent graduates. Some were coming off unemployment, someone were women coming back to work after breaks to raise children, some were private sector looking for less precarious positions. There are a number of AOs who have no idea how they are going to find a reasonable balance between rent, time commuting and some reasonable quality of life. Below AO salary you have EO and CO. At absolute best you can eke out an existence from the entry salaries for those jobs. I wouldn't call them livable salaries. I know couples subsidising their income from previous savings to cater for the fact that one partner is on a civil service salary that does not pay enough for them to live on. They are not all recent grads aged 22.

My personal view - and it was my approach for this - is that you can prepare for the aptitude tests. I don't see success in them as being as simple as lucking out -if you really want them, you'll prepare for them, particularly since you now have to do them twice in a single recruitment process. I'm interested to know why you think you've a more than 50% chance of passing the interview because again, interviews are not "luck" based. You prepare for them, or not, depending on the type person you are. Where the luck, if that's what you want to call it, matters is in how you rank compared to your co-competitors and passing the interview is meaningless if you are placed so far down the list you have no realistic chance of ever being called. As a country, we should probably be concerned that significant numbers of highly placed candidates are ultimately turning down jobs. I was first on a panel last summer and ultimately rejected the offer.

You might see the recruitment process as being the result of luck. I could not possibly comment but I would say you can tilt the balance in your favour by at least preparing for the process.

I also don't agree that the degree you have defines the salary you deserve to the rest of your life. I've done both arts and science degrees and there are some very intelligent people coming out of both. I have also encountered absolute braindead self important idiots coming out of both. The fact that someone has a basic arts degree does not make it a safe assumption that they would not be worth 60KE salary if they rose through management because they happened to be particularly effective in what tend to be generalist jobs. There are people who get very high, advanced degrees who cannot function in the workforce for various reasons. What matters - or should matter - is how effective you are at your job, ultimately.

There is a wider discussion to be had on whether Ireland wants a cheap civil service or a good civil service. At the moment, I would say the country lucked out in that in the past, some very good people have joined and stayed with it. I am not sure the same calibre on average is coming in at this point, particularly linked with the broadly negative coverage that the civil service tends to get. This is not because they have basic arts degrees, but because in a lot of cases, the state is being outcompeted for recruits by the private sector and by the outside world. You talk about 21KE being a reasonable graduate salary and compare it to, say, a big four. But the speed of ascent in the private sector will tend to be faster.

You want good IT staff? Well the grad salary in Microsoft was, 2 years ago, something like 40KE. Against that, the civil service is trying to recruit ICT EOs at something like 28KE.

Anyone with a degree and a second European language with an interest in public administration should really look at competitions for the EU institutions.

Ultimately, a salary number is meaningless outside the context of how much it costs to live in the place where that job is. The average grad salary was worth more in 1994 than it is now because they didn't rise as fast as trying to put a roof over your head did. My experience: your mileage may vary.

All of this is aside from the fact that yes, for the purposes of living in Dublin, 21KE is too low.

AndrewJRenko

BoatMad wrote: »

Grade A post secondary teacher employed. Before 2094

I'm still confused - maybe if you could give starting year and finishing year I might get it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've worked in processing figures for retirements. Taking the overall number of officers covered by my unit as about 35k if i recall correctly, a figure of about 1500 retirements a year from that was about what i would have observed. That might be a high estimate tbh.

So that would be 6k over four years, or 1/6 of the population - long way from 1/3 of the population outlined above?

Just to be clear - are you talking about civil service, public sector, local authority - any or all of these?

uck51js9zml2yt

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The 30k figure in that article is from 2008. Numbers have changed just a bit since then, with dramatic reductions up to 2013, and some recover in the numbers since then.

What's your source for the 1/3 retiring?

I said my source in my opening paragraph. It's from the Civil Service...To be more precise, from someone in HR management.

Arcade_Tryer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's meaningless to talk about 'number of campaigns' unless you can talk about numbers of posts and levels of those posts, and the numbers of staff at the lower levels competing for those posts.

It's not meaningless to talk about 'number of campaigns' if you also talk about the increased competition and how candidates need to be extremely capable and ambitious to gain promotion. Which is probably the way it should be.

Lux23

The only reason I am staying in the public sector is because I hope to start a family soon and flextime/maternity benefits will be a great help when this happens. The problem is I am not earning enough to start a family. So catch 22 right there.