Clerical officer - Low pay - Dublin

My 35k references the number of civil servants subject to shared services. I'd imagine that the approx figure of say 1000 retirements a year from that sample could be reasonably used as a ratio benchmark across local authorities etc but the wider predominance of eg outdoor staff in the latter might not make it so

AndrewJRenko

Laurie Purple Snorer wrote: »

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

Thanks for the additional precision. But somebody's got their wires twisted somewhere along the line. There isn't 30k people in the Civil Service, and there isn't 1/3 of them due to retire in the next four years.

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

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.

It's meaningless to talk about number of campaigns in the context of your original claim that there are "plenty of promotion opportunities on stream in the civil service". There are 21k staff in the civil service, so four or five campaigns with an unspecified number of posts does not constitute 'plenty of opportunities'.

Deleted User wrote: »

My 35k references the number of civil servants subject to shared services. I'd imagine that the approx figure of say 1000 retirements a year from that sample could be reasonably used as a ratio benchmark across local authorities etc but the wider predominance of eg outdoor staff in the latter might not make it so

1k a year out of the 35k mix of civil and some public servants is much more sensible. So that's under 3% a year, or 11% in four years - long way off 33%.

Mrwade

It's meaningless to talk about number of campaigns in the context of your original claim that there are "plenty of promotion opportunities on stream in the civil service". There are 21k staff in the civil service, so four or five campaigns with an unspecified number of posts does not constitute 'plenty of opportunities'.



1k a year out of the 35k mix of civil and some public servants is much more sensible. So that's under 3% a year, or 11% in four years - long way off 33%.[/quote]


I was at a meeting in revenue a few weeks ago and the boss said about 20% of staff will retire in the next few years, he wasn't very specific but sounded like a lot of jobs to be filled

The_Conductor

Guys- with respect of the numbers of posts to be filled in the coming years- the fact of the matter is there are different age profiles in different Departments- so for example Revenue has the youngest staff average age (at 42) whereas Agriculture is the oldest (at 54). This is predominantly as a result of the decade of recruitment embargo- along with a policy of a 1-in-3 / 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 recruitment policy which was enforced in some Departments as far back as 1997.

There are large numbers of staff due to retire in the coming years- period.

uck51js9zml2yt

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks for the additional precision. But somebody's got their wires twisted somewhere along the line. There isn't 30k people in the Civil Service, and there isn't 1/3 of them due to retire in the next four years.

You obviously know more than a senior manager in the HR dept of the civil service

Just to add. My dept lost 200 people since the crash. Its set to appoint another 80-100 in the next 12 months, excluding replacing those who will retire.

I dunno where the figure of 21k civil servants is coming from but it's definitely incorrect.

There's close to twice that.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno where the figure of 21k civil servants is coming from but it's definitely incorrect.

There's close to twice that.

36,172 to 31st December 2016 to be precise.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Any kind of professional employment will offer some employer contribution, often a matching contribution that means you double-your-money investment on day 1.

This isn't necessarily true anymore. My current employer offers no pension contribution and that's true of a lot of start-ups or growth businesses. You are expected to make your own arrangements salary reflects that.

On the other hand I have had very generous pension arrangements with previous employers. It varies.

hooplah

pilly wrote: »

That wasn't my point. It is a public sector failing because staff are paid for too much sick leave. My initial point was in reply to a poster complaining that they hadn't got enough paid sick leave. In the private sector the majority of companies pay zero.

Is that really true? I am in the public sector but when I previously worked for an engineering Consultancy they paid sick leave. Most of my friends are in the private sector and those with jobs paying > 35k have sick leave - these would include people working in banks, finance, engineering, pharmaceutical, I.T.

I don't think retail tends to pay sick leave [unfortunately] and lower paid or precarious jobs tend to have worse benefits [also unfortunately]. However I don't think it is at all true to say that private sector jobs don't pay sick leave.

xOxSinéadxOx

What is the salary for a CO in 2017? I've been offered a temp position but it doesn't say in the contract what the pay is.

hooplah

hooplah wrote: »

Is that really true? I am in the public sector but when I previously worked for an engineering Consultancy they paid sick leave. Most of my friends are in the private sector and those with jobs paying > 35k have sick leave - these would include people working in banks, finance, engineering, pharmaceutical, I.T.

I don't think retail tends to pay sick leave [unfortunately] and lower paid or precarious jobs tend to have worse benefits [also unfortunately]. However I don't think it is at all true to say that private sector jobs don't pay sick leave.

No, it isn't true, certainly not for white collar jobs. As mentioned above I've never worked anywhere that didn't pay sick leave.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it isn't true, certainly not for white collar jobs. As mentioned above I've never worked anywhere that didn't pay sick leave.

I've worked in a string of US multinationals, a French company and a couple of Irish companies- down the years, before I joined the civil service. I never encountered a company who didn't pay sick leave. Normally- you were obliged to make any social welfare contributions payable to the company (they don't pay for the first 6 days anyway)- which is fair enough- however, without exception, my pay was continued in full, subject to maximum sick leave provisions. Normally- the company reserved the right to have you report to the company doctor for assessment- which I also consider to be fair enough- and in a civil service context- the 'company doctor' is the CMO.

White collar companies who don't pay sick leave- are the exception, rather than the rule.

Technocentral

21,879 1st point on scale.

Parchment

I work in the public service and heard from a high up manager that they were having huge problems recruiting grade 3 staff in Dublin as the salary was not compatible with living there.

Technocentral

Yet theres no appetite in the general public or politicly for an increase, the total opposite, ridiculous. From CO up to EO, at least, there should be a 20% starting salary increase, or equivalent tax breaks.

Parchment

Technocentral wrote: »

Yet theres no appetite in the general public or politicly for an increase, the total opposite, ridiculous. From CO up to EO, at least, there should best a 20â„… starting salary increase.

Are you suggesting that it be increased in Dublin only?

I started out on the bottom level in the public service and at the lower wage and living outside of Dublin it was a decent salary. I never had an issue with money.

I think its adequate for the starting off and generations had no issue with it. But i do see it being an issue in Dublin - maybe they could compensate by providing travel tickets/meal comps to help make it a manageable wage to live in in Dublin.

Technocentral

Parchment wrote:

I think its adequate for the starting off and generations had no issue with it. But i do see it being an issue in Dublin - maybe they could compensate by providing travel tickets/meal comps to help make it a manageable wage to live in in Dublin.

Yes, thats fair enough but something has to be done, the London allowance approach most sensible.

Parchment

Technocentral wrote: »

Yes, thats fair enough but something has to be done, the London allowance approach most sensible.

I agree. Its funny im looking through the advertised job and internal jobs in my organisation now and i would say 65% of them are Dublin.....

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno where the figure of 21k civil servants is coming from but it's definitely incorrect.

There's close to twice that.

21k is the number of CS staff in Govt departments.

When you add in Revenue and others, it brings it up to 35k. I had forgotten about Garda civilian staff and prison officers in my earlier post - apologies for this.

Laurie Purple Snorer wrote: »

You obviously know more than a senior manager in the HR dept of the civil service

The 35k figure is in the right ballpark. Apologies for my error.

The 1/3 retiring in four years is still way off. Large numbers of staff were incentivised to retire early between 2009 and 2013. There just is that many staff nearing retirement age left to retire. If your senior civil servant would care to go on the record in writing, I'll be very interested to see it.

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't necessarily true anymore. My current employer offers no pension contribution and that's true of a lot of start-ups or growth businesses. You are expected to make your own arrangements salary reflects that.

On the other hand I have had very generous pension arrangements with previous employers. It varies.

Yes, startups may be a different environment, though as you say, the overall package reflects the lack of pension.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

21k is the number of CS staff in Govt departments.

When you add in Revenue and others, it brings it up to 35k. I had forgotten about Garda civilian staff and prison officers in my earlier post - apologies for this.


The 35k figure is in the right ballpark. Apologies for my error.

The 1/3 retiring in four years is still way off. Large numbers of staff were incentivised to retire early between 2009 and 2013. There just is that many staff nearing retirement age left to retire. If your senior civil servant would care to go on the record in writing, I'll be very interested to see it.



Yes, startups may be a different environment, though as you say, the overall package reflects the lack of pension.

All fair enough, cheers for clarifying. I agree that a third of any department retiring in the next 3-5 years seems exceptional

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

All fair enough, cheers for clarifying. I agree that a third of any department retiring in the next 3-5 years seems exceptional

The third of all civil servants retiring in the next 5 years- while exceptional- was and is entirely predictable- and is a result of a number of different policies- most notably the marriage ban for lower grade female staff- and the 1:3/4/5 replacement policies in place since the mid 90s- wholly aside form the subsequent recruitment embargo.

Some Departments are a lot older than others- many civil servants refer to the Taoiseach's office, Finance and Revenue - as 'golden child' Departments- as they always got staff when they wanted them, regardless of what replacement policies were in place at any given time- whereas other Departments- even large ones like DSP or Agriculture- seemed to be the problem children who were scrutinised three ways to kingdom come. I.e. there are 'sexy' Departments- where you try to get to if you want promotion and a good stream of staff coming in at all grades on a continual basis- and there are forgotten backwaters- which are being deliberately run down (such as the two aforementioned Cinderellas.......)

BoatMad

hooplah wrote: »

Is that really true? I am in the public sector but when I previously worked for an engineering Consultancy they paid sick leave. Most of my friends are in the private sector and those with jobs paying > 35k have sick leave - these would include people working in banks, finance, engineering, pharmaceutical, I.T.

I don't think retail tends to pay sick leave [unfortunately] and lower paid or precarious jobs tend to have worse benefits [also unfortunately]. However I don't think it is at all true to say that private sector jobs don't pay sick leave.

30 years a private employer , always paid staff fully through any certified sickness

also offered holidays incentives for low or no sick days, very popular with many people getting the 4 extra days a year for zero sick days

AndrewJRenko

The_Conductor wrote: »

The third of all civil servants retiring in the next 5 years- while exceptional- was and is entirely predictable-

It is entirely fictional.

There is no reliable source for this claim, beyond 'somebody told me'. You have somebody in PeoplePoint telling you that the figure is about 1,000 per year or 5,000 in five years out of 35,000 - not even half of the claimed 3rd of all civil servants.

Calina

Parchment wrote: »

Are you suggesting that it be increased in Dublin only?

I started out on the bottom level in the public service and at the lower wage and living outside of Dublin it was a decent salary. I never had an issue with money.

I think its adequate for the starting off and generations had no issue with it. But i do see it being an issue in Dublin - maybe they could compensate by providing travel tickets/meal comps to help make it a manageable wage to live in in Dublin.

I have to be honest and say travel tickets/meal comps would not even come close to bridging the gap between income and expenditure that my life as a civil servant entailed and I was not a CO.

The fact that it was fine for you is grand. But I'm not sure it's grand outside Dublin now - I ran numbers for a move from Dublin to Limerick just before I emigrated last year and it still wasn't good.

The fact that generations were grand doesn't mean this generation are grand. I don't think they are and I also think it needs to be recognised that the civil service attracts not just the straight out of college or school. Even so, we condemn our young people to financial penury on the grounds that sure we did it and it never did us any harm is unwise. We lose good people from public service and in many cases we fail to attract them in the first place.

noodler

COs are actually overpaid according to the CSO when compared to the private sector.

Report about 2 weeks ago.

Calina

noodler wrote: »

COs are actually overpaid according to the CSO when compared to the private sector.

Report about 2 weeks ago.

Personally I think that part of the private sector is chronically underpaid as well.

However if you as a country do not want to pay more for your low paid staff, then cut your accommodation costs in half. I can't see that happening. Hence as I said in one of my earlier posts Dublin is an expensive kip and this is why you are having this conversation. You wouldn't be if accommodation did not happen to be fleece level high. I also noted that rectifying this issue would benefit private sector workers too.

I cannot, however, see this happening. Half the TDs are, I believe, landlords.

noodler

Agreed. It all comes down to rent in the end. Extortionate. Really sets you back years.

Technocentral

quote=noodler]COs are actually overpaid according to the CSO when compared to the private sector.[/quote]



How do they figure that??! Salaries should be assessed based on living costs, rents, bills and food etc, 28k at least, should be first point on CO scale in Dublin. People who work should be living, not barely existing. The State should be setting a good example to private sector.

The_Conductor

Technocentral wrote: »

quote=noodler]COs are actually overpaid according to the CSO when compared to the private sector.

Technocentral wrote: »

How do they figure that??! Salaries should be assessed based on living costs, rents, bills and food etc, 28k at least, should be first point on CO scale in Dublin. People who work should be living, not barely existing. The State should be setting a good example to private sector.

Thats EO salary- which arguably is also well out of sync. In addition- we have the manner in which the CO and EO grades are treated far more favourably in local authorities- than in the civil service itself- which is ripe for the respective unions to argue cases over.

noodler

The_Conductor wrote: »

How do they figure that??! Salaries should be assessed based on living costs, rents, bills and food etc, 28k at least, should be first point on CO scale in Dublin. People who work should be living, not barely existing. The State should be setting a good example to private sector.

Thats EO salary- which arguably is also well out of sync. In addition- we have the manner in which the CO and EO grades are treated far more favourably in local authorities- than in the civil service itself- which is ripe for the respective unions to argue cases over.

Compared to the private sector.

You can read the report.


Why should a CO be paid 28k?

Its an entry level clerical position. It isn't a graduate job. It. Doesn't require any specific qualifications or decent experience.

Not said to be nasty but by the same logic youd have to knock every other Civil Service position up by 7k.