Clerical officer - Low pay - Dublin

Technocentral

BoatMad wrote:

To put your comments another way , the state should take as much as its needs to pay as much as it wants to PS/CS

Not to pay as much as it wants, to pay a fair, living wage.

BoatMad

Technocentral wrote: »

Not to pay as much as it wants, to pay a fair, living wage.

unfortunately thats a piece of string, everyone has a different idea of what a " living wage" is.

At the end of the day it boils down to comparisons and money , comparisons, in that the job should be compared to elsewhere and money, i.e. having a balance between over taxation to funds salaries and the opposite .


there is no such thing as a " living wage " , There is a minimum wage , there is your wage and my wage.

The_Conductor

BoatMad wrote: »

there is no such thing as a " living wage " , There is a minimum wage , there is your wage and my wage.

How about someone (the ESRI or who-ever) be asked to come up with a formula for determining a 'living wage'.

Personally I'd suggest it be composed of several elements-

From after-tax (and other deductions) a living wage should include:

1. Sufficient to cover Accommodation costs (max of 30% of net income)
2. Sufficient to cover any medical bills (to max of 144 a month- incl. of GP/A&E/Prescription/Dental charges etc)
3. Sufficient to cover childcare for the working person to a maximum of 20% of their net income
4. Sufficient to cover any travel/transport costs, clothing and subsistence (meals etc) of employees to a maximum of 15% of their net income
5. Food/clothing and other necessities 15% of net income

After accommodation, food/clothing, med bills, childcare, work related t&s and food/clothing- I'd argue there should be a net 15-20% of gross pay over........

I'd also argue that the living wage should be benchmarked in such a manner that there is a clear and unequivocal benefit to working- of significantly over and above any benefits that someone might get who is not working, or which might accrue to them- I'd argue someone who works a 35 hour week outside of the home- should be entitled to at least 100% net into their hands- more than the gross beneficial accruals to someone reliant on social welfare and other benefits. At the moment- this patently is not the case.

Someone could sit down and work this out. It need not cost the earth- but it should be reasonable- and indeed- if the two big components of the equation- housing and childcare were reduced in cost- it would imply a significantly higher accrual to a worker- than is now the case...........

BoatMad

The_Conductor wrote: »

How about someone (the ESRI or who-ever) be asked to come up with a formula for determining a 'living wage'.

Personally I'd suggest it be composed of several elements-

From after-tax (and other deductions) a living wage should include:

1. Sufficient to cover Accommodation costs (max of 30% of net income)
2. Sufficient to cover any medical bills (to max of 144 a month- incl. of GP/A&E/Prescription/Dental charges etc)
3. Sufficient to cover childcare for the working person to a maximum of 20% of their net income
4. Sufficient to cover any travel/transport costs, clothing and subsistence (meals etc) of employees to a maximum of 15% of their net income
5. Food/clothing and other necessities 15% of net income

After accommodation, food/clothing, med bills, childcare, work related t&s and food/clothing- I'd argue there should be a net 15-20% of gross pay over........

I'd also argue that the living wage should be benchmarked in such a manner that there is a clear and unequivocal benefit to working- of significantly over and above any benefits that someone might get who is not working, or which might accrue to them- I'd argue someone who works a 35 hour week outside of the home- should be entitled to at least 100% net into their hands- more than the gross beneficial accruals to someone reliant on social welfare and other benefits. At the moment- this patently is not the case.

Someone could sit down and work this out. It need not cost the earth- but it should be reasonable- and indeed- if the two big components of the equation- housing and childcare were reduced in cost- it would imply a significantly higher accrual to a worker- than is now the case...........

while what you say is reasonable, but the devil is in the detail

DO you have a capital city allowance , and therefore a person doing the same job elsewhere is paid less.


what standard of accommodation do you apply, sharing a bedsit with your mates, a two up two down , a nice house in the burbs etc

again standards of childcare and associated costs vary considerably

I cant see the number being sensible, some will say its too much others will say its too little and " target " numbers like these option become ceilings , just like the minimum wage actually ends up being the maximum starting wage type of thing

The_Conductor

BoatMad wrote: »

while what you say is reasonable, but the devil is in the detail

DO you have a capital city allowance , and therefore a person doing the same job elsewhere is paid less.


what standard of accommodation do you apply, sharing a bedsit with your mates, a two up two down , a nice house in the burbs etc

again standards of childcare and associated costs vary considerably

I cant see the number being sensible, some will say its too much others will say its too little and " target " numbers like these option become ceilings , just like the minimum wage actually ends up being the maximum starting wage type of thing

I hear what you're saying- however, the higher cost of living in any given area- would be factored into the 'living wage' for the area- so someone in Dublin would have a much higher accommodation/childcare/work related t&s etc- than would someone in a provincial town. I.e. you'd have local living wages- rather than a national living wage- which would keep track of the costs associated with living in a particular area.

In practice this would mean someone working in Dublin, Cork or Galway- would earn more by default- than someone in any other provincial town or city.........

Technocentral

BoatMad wrote:

I cant see the number being sensible, some will say its too much others will say its too little and " target " numbers like these option become ceilings , just like the minimum wage actually ends up being the maximum starting wage type of thing

You think just leave things as is then? That its fine in Dublin?

AndrewJRenko

BoatMad wrote: »

unfortunately thats a piece of string, everyone has a different idea of what a " living wage" is.

At the end of the day it boils down to comparisons and money , comparisons, in that the job should be compared to elsewhere and money, i.e. having a balance between over taxation to funds salaries and the opposite .


there is no such thing as a " living wage " , There is a minimum wage , there is your wage and my wage.

The_Conductor wrote: »

How about someone (the ESRI or who-ever) be asked to come up with a formula for determining a 'living wage'.

Personally I'd suggest it be composed of several elements-

From after-tax (and other deductions) a living wage should include:

1. Sufficient to cover Accommodation costs (max of 30% of net income)
2. Sufficient to cover any medical bills (to max of 144 a month- incl. of GP/A&E/Prescription/Dental charges etc)
3. Sufficient to cover childcare for the working person to a maximum of 20% of their net income
4. Sufficient to cover any travel/transport costs, clothing and subsistence (meals etc) of employees to a maximum of 15% of their net income
5. Food/clothing and other necessities 15% of net income

After accommodation, food/clothing, med bills, childcare, work related t&s and food/clothing- I'd argue there should be a net 15-20% of gross pay over........

I'd also argue that the living wage should be benchmarked in such a manner that there is a clear and unequivocal benefit to working- of significantly over and above any benefits that someone might get who is not working, or which might accrue to them- I'd argue someone who works a 35 hour week outside of the home- should be entitled to at least 100% net into their hands- more than the gross beneficial accruals to someone reliant on social welfare and other benefits. At the moment- this patently is not the case.

Someone could sit down and work this out. It need not cost the earth- but it should be reasonable- and indeed- if the two big components of the equation- housing and childcare were reduced in cost- it would imply a significantly higher accrual to a worker- than is now the case...........

The Living Wage is fairly clearly defined:

http://www.livingwage.ie/ €11.50 per hour

Donal55

Payrise kicks in this Friday for all CS/PS in the country.
An extra grand should go some way towards helping those COs on the starter grade.

The_Conductor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The Living Wage is fairly clearly defined:

http://www.livingwage.ie/ €11.50 per hour

Frankly- I don't see how this can be defined as a 'living wage' when the enumerated benefits of social welfare recipients- significantly exceeds this level. This is the point I was making. A living wage- has to be cognisant of both the living costs associated with living in a particular area (or indeed- transport costs to and from your area of work- if you can't live there)- along with the costs of working (to include clothing/subsistence etc etc- *and* the price of childcare).

As it stands- even for those on the current 'living wage'- they are significantly better off, simply not bothering.

The current calculation for the living wage- is not cognisant (of pretty much anything) of someone being better off from actually working- quite simply- if you factor the cost of working into the equation (and there is a cost for everyone)- you are significantly better off on social welfare benefits at the moment- than you are taking up a low paid job- including a CO post in the civil service.

noodler

The_Conductor wrote: »

Frankly- I don't see how this can be defined as a 'living wage' when the enumerated benefits of social welfare recipients- significantly exceeds this level. This is the point I was making. A living wage- has to be cognisant of both the living costs associated with living in a particular area (or indeed- transport costs to and from your area of work- if you can't live there)- along with the costs of working (to include clothing/subsistence etc etc- *and* the price of childcare).

As it stands- even for those on the current 'living wage'- they are significantly better off, simply not bothering.

The current calculation for the living wage- is not cognisant (of pretty much anything) of someone being better off from actually working- quite simply- if you factor the cost of working into the equation (and there is a cost for everyone)- you are significantly better off on social welfare benefits at the moment- than you are taking up a low paid job- including a CO post in the civil service.

With unemployment benefits currently at just over 190 p.w. subject to a means test, you seem to be making assumptions about the other ancillary benefits an unemployed person can also claim and applying this to everyone in your example.

Not to mention the lack of salary progression, promotion, skills development and general mental well-being once derives from employment.

EOs and AOs do more skilled work, requiring a degree or experience ( or masters in some AO cases) and they start at 28/31.

It is not possible to be quite frank, to increase the CO grade salary to 28 given the disparities between the type of work they do and the work done by the grades whose scale they would be encroaching upon.

Not without pro-rata increases in the sales for these grades as well at the very least.

Calina

IMO specific to living in Dublin the EO and AO salaries are too low too.

Again if the country wants low salaries it needs low key living costs like accommodation too. You could fix the low income issue by fixing accommodation. Banning airbnb would go a long way towards supporting this and ot would benefit low paid private sector too.

Donal55

Calina wrote: »

IMO specific to living in Dublin the EO and AO salaries are too low too.

Again if the country wants low salaries it needs low key living costs like accommodation too. You could fix the low income issue by fixing accommodation. Banning airbnb would go a long way towards supporting this and ot would benefit low paid private sector too.

Back in the mid 90s early 00s I worked for a Swedish/British multinational in the UK with offices and depots from Dover to Glasgow.
There were different pay scales attached according to where you were working with those in Dover and the South being the most highly paid, followed by Liverpool and NE being interim, where I was based, and those in Scotland getting paid the least. These rates of pay were meant to reflect accomodation and other such costs.

Temporarily, there were times when I worked in different regions and I kept my normal rate plus expenses, I was told that if I moved permanently to a region of higher rate I would get the increase in wages but likewise, if I transferred to a region with lower pay I would have to accept the pay reduction.

This had the knock on effect that single, younger people, who were already attracted to the bright lights down south plus who were more ambitious were constantly seeking promotions and transfers, which in itself isn't a bad thing. It did however leave the Scottish setups with a more aged settled workforce whose kids were already grown up and who in effect were counting the days until retirement.

That was alright in a private company. How it would work nationally i do not know, however,on just reading a recent document from the Dept of Env re wage increases in LAs, there is a scale for GOs and related grades SPECIFICALLY for those outside Dublin area.

I can only surmise from that however that there is a different pay scale for those that are within the Dublin region.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

With unemployment benefits currently at just over 190 p.w. subject to a means test, you seem to be making assumptions about the other ancillary benefits an unemployed person can also claim and applying this to everyone in your example.

Not to mention the lack of salary progression, promotion, skills development and general mental well-being once derives from employment.

EOs and AOs do more skilled work, requiring a degree or experience ( or masters in some AO cases) and they start at 28/31.

It is not possible to be quite frank, to increase the CO grade salary to 28 given the disparities between the type of work they do and the work done by the grades whose scale they would be encroaching upon.

Not without pro-rata increases in the sales for these grades as well at the very least.

The line about "you get more than just financial benefits out of your job" is a bit to the side of this discussion imo

Plenty of AOs under the age of 28 by the way. And plenty more than plenty COs starting older than that.

But thing the salary to the age and supposed lifestyle requirements of the supposed applicants seems a strange path to be taking (I know it wasn't you started it)

Technocentral

noodler wrote:

It is not possible to be quite frank, to increase the CO grade salary to 28 given the disparities between the type of work they do and the work done by the grades whose scale they would be encroaching upon.

Well subsidise rents then.

noodler

Deleted User wrote: »

The line about "you get more than just financial benefits out of your job" is a bit to the side of this discussion imo

Plenty of AOs under the age of 28 by the way. And plenty more than plenty COs starting older than that.

But thing the salary to the age and supposed lifestyle requirements of the supposed applicants seems a strange path to be taking (I know it wasn't you started it)

That was salary - not age.

noodler

Technocentral wrote: »

Well subsidise rents then.

Yeah - seems fairer in principle altough in practic has proved difficult and seems to distort the market further.

Sliding scale of some sort but worth bearing in mind an AO and EO will contribute more to taxes (due to the bigger gap between tax liabaility and credits at 28/31k then 22k) and also pay PRD which COs don't have to pay until theyve been there a few years.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

That was salary - not age.

D'oh!

Burgo

What is the net take home of a CO?

The_Conductor

Burgo wrote: »

What is the net take home of a CO?

Depends on deductions but typically a new CO would have a net take home of between 330-360 a week.

Donal55

Technocentral wrote: »

Well subsidise rents then.

IMO subsidising rents for public sector workers would go down like a lead balloon.
A far more equitable solution for the wider population could be the reinstatement of tax relief for renters.

Donal55

Donal55 wrote: »

IMO subsidising rents for public sector workers would go down like a lead balloon.
A far more equitable solution for the wider population could be the reinstatement of tax relief for renters.

This would lead to some pretty rapid & questionable ways being found around the rent increase caps

Donal55

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This would lead to some pretty rapid & questionable ways being found around the rent increase caps

It may also lead to some renters raising their heads above the parapets in relation to paying 'under the counter' monies to landlords.

drake70

Donal55 wrote: »

Payrise kicks in this Friday for all CS/PS in the country.
An extra grand should go some way towards helping those COs on the starter grade.

That's per annum and before deductions

Technocentral

Donal55 wrote:

It may also lead to some renters raising their heads above the parapets in relation to paying 'under the counter' monies to landlords.

This is all fine, but every suggestion for making it more affordable for COs in Dublin is shot down on here.

Technocentral

That 1000 is 15 a week for me after tax, welcome but I need a lot more than that to go towards rent.

Cyrus

Technocentral wrote: »

That 1000 is 15 a week for me after tax, welcome but I need a lot more than that to go towards rent.

well then you can't afford to rent and you either need to stay at home with your parents, rent a room with a load of mates or get a job that pays better.

if the salary levels are too low for people to live in Dublin then the jobs wont fill and they will have to do something about it

no one is forcing anyone to take these jobs

Arcade_Tryer

Calina wrote: »

IMO specific to living in Dublin the EO and AO salaries are too low too.

Again if the country wants low salaries it needs low key living costs like accommodation too. You could fix the low income issue by fixing accommodation. Banning airbnb would go a long way towards supporting this and ot would benefit low paid private sector too.

That won't solve the housing/rental situation. One could even argue rents would increase further due to landlords looking to compensate for their loss of airbnb income.

The lack of supply is the single biggest issue in Dublin. Airbnb, vacant property, sub-optimal use of land, are all significant factors, but it's simple supply and demand. So simple that expert economists have been repeating this for months now, yet the Government and Local Authorities continue to cause stagnation in the building sector.

Arcade_Tryer

The_Conductor wrote: »

The current calculation for the living wage- is not cognisant (of pretty much anything) of someone being better off from actually working- quite simply- if you factor the cost of working into the equation (and there is a cost for everyone)- you are significantly better off on social welfare benefits at the moment- than you are taking up a low paid job- including a CO post in the civil service.

This is a serious stretch. Perhaps if your preference for not working wasn't very high in the first place, but for most people the CO position is a far better outcome than unemployment benefit, and the additional costs which come with it e.g. gaps in employment, career fragmentation, social rejection, mental illness and so on. The difference between being on welfare and working is never a simple cost/benefit analysis for most people.

Cyrus

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This is a serious stretch. Perhaps if your preference for not working wasn't very high in the first place, but for most people the CO position is a far better outcome than unemployment benefit, and the additional costs which come with it e.g. gaps in employment, career fragmentation, social rejection, mental illness and so on. The difference between being on welfare and working is never a simple cost/benefit analysis for most people.

agreed totally

Arcade_Tryer

Cyrus wrote: »

well then you can't afford to rent and you either need to stay at home with your parents, rent a room with a load of mates or get a job that pays better.

if the salary levels are too low for people to live in Dublin then the jobs wont fill and they will have to do something about it

no one is forcing anyone to take these jobs

The problem with your argument is that in booms, which Ireland is beginning to experience, the returns to skilled jobs are significantly greater than that of low paid work, creating a growing gap between high and low paid work.

Here is a very recent economic study on this http://www.esr.ie/article/view/674

Essentially, recessions cause income inequality to reduce, while booms cause it to increase. Hence the increasing difficulty low paid workers are experiencing right now in Dublin.