Underpaid jobs

gossamer

Cleaners, full-stop. The money starting out can be farcical. Part-time cleaning work is taxed to the balls, too. Not to mention the absolute state fully-functioning adults leave the toilets in, pigs would be easier to clean up after. It's a valuable service, I have no idea why they're not getting paid more.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

valoren wrote: »

Perhaps a controversial one but professional footballers. Specifically, the elite leagues worldwide.
It's the world's biggest sport, and while a few superstars earn millions, the vast majority earn a pittance in comparison.
Now I know earning 5 to 15 grand a week sounds obscene but considering the short window of a career and what the game itself earns, then the players themselves are paid relatively little. That pay is usually the gross figure too. Tax usually accounts for circa 50% depending on the country you play in.

Carlos Tevez's monthly pay slip from Man City in 2010:

£747,287 gross, deductions of £338,889.

topcatcbr

osarusan wrote: »

Carlos Tevez's monthly pay slip from Man City in 2010:

£747,287 gross, deductions of £338,889.

How does he cope.

valoren

Tevez is an outlier example, he probably can't believe he earns such cash.
The Ronaldos et al are well compensated despite taxation, they are so good that it is inevitable.
And they, like professional golfers, can earn more off the field than on it.

I'm looking at mid table mediocrity teams, the Hull City's, Middlesborough's. You can't have a premier league with the top 4 teams. Say you're 28 and reaching the peak of your career, you get a contract for £30,000 a week (average PL wages) with West Ham and you earn ?780,000 a year. A brilliant wage for such a mid-table club.

You get ?3 million over a 4 year contract, meanwhile the game itself has in that intervening period earns multiple billions.
You start looking at that £3 million like crumbs from a main feast. That to me is being underpaid in the bigger picture.

It's no wonder you'd need a solid agent to negotiating for you, I would never begrudge a professional footballer earning what are looked on as obscene wages.

osarusan

valoren wrote: »

Tevez is an outlier example, he probably can't believe he earns such cash.
The Ronaldos et al are well compensated despite taxation, they are so good that it is inevitable.
And they, like professional golfers, can earn more off the field than on it.

I'm looking at mid table mediocrity teams, the Hull City's, Middlesborough's. You can't have a premier league with the top 4 teams. Say you're 28 and reaching the peak of your career, you get a contract for ?30,000 a week (average PL wages) with West Ham and you earn ?780,000 a year. A brilliant wage for such a mid-table club.

You get ?3 million over a 4 year contract, meanwhile the game itself has in that intervening period earns multiple billions.
You start looking at that ?3 million like crumbs from a main feast. That to me is being underpaid in the bigger picture.

It's no wonder you'd need a solid agent to negotiating for you, I would never begrudge a professional footballer earning what are looked on as obscene wages.

Wasn't disagreeing, was pointing out how much tax he pays.

Best paid player at Burnley is on £18,000 a week I think. I think Blackpool had a cap of £10,000 a week when they were in the Premier League too.

What's surprising is in leagues like MLS, you get the marquee player who makes millions, yet the home-grown talent could be on only 60 or 70 grand a year.

Kaka was getting $7 million a year at Orlando City, while his strike partner (who scored 17 goals to Kaka's 9) was on $167,000 a year.

cantdecide

Call centres. The stories you have heard are true but the worst truth is the sheer exploitation of the working poor.

I worked in a contact centre (doing backoffice admin) where people were being screamed at by the public for €19,500 starting wage. The worst thing is that it was a function outsourced by the government. Not that anyone should be screaming at anyone ever but you would easily believed you were talking to public servants who may have had some perks and some quality of life and not the working poor. Everyone involved in the enterprise should give themselves a pat on the back. Personally, I think anyone that presides over these exploitative outsourcing exercising are scum.

Donald Trump

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are many reasons why Irish nurses might go abroad.....[/quote]

You forgot to mention - "have already exhausted all available supplies of mickey in Coppers" :P

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

Is this correct? Let's check.

The first pay cut was 5% for wages up to 30k. Above that it was a 7.5% pay cut.

Then there was the second pay cut, the PRD.

What has happened in the LRA? Have these been fully reversed?

The PRD has been abolished for those earning up to 28,750.

Okay, for somebody on 28k, the PRD has been abolished, and they have got the following pay restoration:

1-Jan-2016 = +1%
April 2017 = +1,000

So 28k less 5% = 26,600

Jan 2016 +1% = 26,866
April 2017 +1,000 = 27,866

So, somebody on 28k has seen much, but not quite all, of their two pay cuts restored.

You are right, it is only the first two or three points of the Clerical Officer salary that have had full restoration. Those above that have only had around 90% of the cuts restored.

However, the general points I made, that firstly, the cuts were more severe on the higher paid, and secondly, that restoration has focussed on the lower-paid, are true.

blanch152

gossamer wrote: »

Cleaners, full-stop. The money starting out can be farcical. Part-time cleaning work is taxed to the balls, too. Not to mention the absolute state fully-functioning adults leave the toilets in, pigs would be easier to clean up after. It's a valuable service, I have no idea why they're not getting paid more.

A part-time cleaner pays little or no tax, PRSI or USC.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

OldNotWIse

Civil servants who started at a certain arbitrary point in time as opposed to their equivalent counters who started after them. I work alongside people who get a 12.5% "productivity allowance" whatever the f*ck that is, on top of their gross while others who started after them do not get the 12.5% but do the same work.

Lille16

Bar staff and waiters/waitresses are very underpaid and underappreciated in my opinion. I think its harsh and untrue to refer to either job as 'un-skilled'. It is a tough job with un-sociable hours but the customer service and craft that goes into both do not get the respect I think those people deserve.

PMBC

topcatcbr wrote: »

I hate the way we put each other down. There is always those who think everyone else is paid too much.

The truth is that the difference in pay between management and staff in all sectors of society does not reflect the difference in work levels or responsibility. Especially when it comes to senior management.

The public sector is prime example. With all the cuts imposed on the frontline staff pay the management got proportionally less cuts. But when there is increases given eg benchmarking they got much higher increases.

The trend being that the gap between the rich and poor getting higher all the time.

So in my opinion this needs to be adjusted everywhere. All lower paid jobes should be brought up to a point that in all organisations the highest paid should get the same increase as the lowest paid. This system of management getting pay increase through efficiency by cutting the lower paid who actually do the work is unjust.

So stop belittling each other.

Have to agree.
Instead of berating workers with 'good' pensions all should be proposing the same as standard. IMHO more socially advanced countries have a much lower multiplier between top and average/bottom wages. It would challenge management, if they wanted such higher levels, to increase overall performance; then all would benefit. The disparities with the share of the benefits to labour compared with Capital are well known and, as far as I have read, not disputes. Warren Buffet said recently, that is one of the things with Capitalism referring to take overs - you must cut numbers. While it is a very/most efficient system, pure capitalism is not what is practised. The neo-liberal is for socialising losses.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Lille16 wrote: »

Bar staff and waiters/waitresses are very underpaid and underappreciated in my opinion. I think its harsh and untrue to refer to either job as 'un-skilled'. It is a tough job with un-sociable hours but the customer service and craft that goes into both do not get the respect I think those people deserve.

Worked in a hotel when younger. Did bar work (pub and at functions), waitering and portering. All low skill. Yes it can be hectic in some scenarios, and not everyone is suited to it, but it's low skill.

PMBC

keeponhurling wrote: »

This is irrelevant.
The market sets the rate. 
If pay is high and lots of people are applying, the rate will come down.
If pay is too low, nobody will apply so pay will need to be increased.
Engineering firms will pay engineers what is needed to get hire and retain them (and not more).

The market does not (always) work because information/sharing/availability is imperfect 9asymmetric, I think, is the term e.g. the market saying was that a rising tide would lift all boats - and it didn't. Also the market is subject to improprieties, cartel behaviour, price fixing. Why, for example, used most pubs in a small town have the same price list; why do all the doctors in such towns charge the same fee? I've worked on projects where some were very poorly rewarded and as a result were of such poor standard that work was very difficult, things were done incorrectly resulting in overwork by others. Owner was only interested in final result/bottom line. Lots, including me, left.

Potential-Monke

Service roles in general. People look down on them, waiters, waitresses, bar staff, etc. I thoroughly enjoy being a waiter, and even have a qualification in it, but the wages are not career worthy. I would love to have stayed in a certain waiting role, but i couldn't justify it as i was giving 100% every day (because i loved the work) but with no prospect of increased wages ever (unless government mandated) meant i had to leave a job i love because of wages.

Same now, after 10 years of being a Garda (wages are good, cuts and taxes took most of it, definitely newer ones aren't paid enough for the work they do), i reverted back to a Customer Service role (another area i have massive interest in). €19k a year, nothing for working unsocial hours, and basic pay + extra days leave for working bank holidays (which you have no choice in if you're rostered). And this is the reason the customer service in most of these companies is shocking. Pay peanuts, get monkeys. As i said, i have a massive interest in proper customer service, as i've been at the end of terrible customer service so many times. I'm one of those rare agents who actually cares about his job, picks up after others and have higher up "management" getting me to do their callbacks for them. I get nothing extra, and i'm only doing it because i'm hoping it will help with promotion. Most others are in the boat of "basic wage, basic service". Put the wages up, have proper monitoring, and the agents will be happier which means they will work better and improve their companies standing (customer service in the telecommunications industry is shockingly bad, but can be easily improved if they only listened to the people who actually do the job).

As for the person(s) saying lower rank footballers get paid pittance in comparison. I honestly think they're all on too much, even those on 10k a week. Like, they have my yearly wages in less than 2 weeks. I have no sympathy for any of them, and actually detest most of the high-income footballers, because while they're usually better at scoring/defending/etc compared to the lower paid ones, they also dive at every available opportunity, and have life shattering injuries until they realise they got their free...

Martin567

valoren wrote: »

Tevez is an outlier example, he probably can't believe he earns such cash.
The Ronaldos et al are well compensated despite taxation, they are so good that it is inevitable.
And they, like professional golfers, can earn more off the field than on it.

I'm looking at mid table mediocrity teams, the Hull City's, Middlesborough's. You can't have a premier league with the top 4 teams. Say you're 28 and reaching the peak of your career, you get a contract for ?30,000 a week (average PL wages) with West Ham and you earn ?780,000 a year. A brilliant wage for such a mid-table club.

You get ?3 million over a 4 year contract, meanwhile the game itself has in that intervening period earns multiple billions.
You start looking at that ?3 million like crumbs from a main feast. That to me is being underpaid in the bigger picture.

It's no wonder you'd need a solid agent to negotiating for you, I would never begrudge a professional footballer earning what are looked on as obscene wages.

I would disagree totally with your argument. A player earning ?25k per week (below average PL wages) will earn ?5.2m over the course of a four year contract. Yes, it's a short career but a 'normal' person earning ?50k p.a. would take 100 years to earn that much.

So that's a guaranteed gross pay of ?5.2m for in many cases not very good performance. If you think about it, there are at least 400-500 players in the English PL earning in excess of ?1m per annum. Factor in all the other leagues around the world and you have several thousand professional footballers earning above this figure.

If you compare those earnings with individual sports like golf or tennis, which are completely performance related, there is a huge difference. There might be 100 golfers (probably less) who earn ?1m from playing in a year and a lot less again in tennis. The relative standard these players have to reach to earn that much is far greater than for football and it can all disappear in an instant if they lose their game. There is no guarantee of a 4 year contract, etc.

I don't particularly begrudge footballers either but to suggest they are underpaid is ridiculous in my opinion. Yes, there is a lot of money in the game through TV rights & sponsorship deals but most clubs are not breaking even due to the huge wages they pay. Chelsea and Man City would be insolvent long ago if it weren't for their benevolent owners and many smaller clubs gamble everything on continued participation in the top division.

Elemonator

Barristers. I'm serious.

Not many seem to be aware that it is a self employed profession and when you are finished training, you are out on your own. You have to build a name for yourself. You can't form chambers or go into partnership with another barrister.

I am aware some make millions at the Bar but there are many in there just surviving.

PMBC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Free secondary came about 63 - I know cos I got a Council school around same time. Free third level came about 68. I also benefited from that and have always been grateful to the ratepayers and taxpayers at the time who funded it. So you would be talking about over 65s.
Department of Finance and the greatly admired TK Whittaker weren't that happy as the Minister announced it without consulting them. Since then it has been seen to be a factor in this country's economic growth and foreign direct investment.
OK - what does free education mean now? Levies, registration fees, mandatory contributions etc.!

Kyleboy

Bus drivers

blanch152

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is a separate discussion and a separate argument. All I am doing is correcting the misleading statement below:

topcatcbr wrote: »

The public sector is prime example. With all the cuts imposed on the frontline staff pay the management got proportionally less cuts. .

That simply isn't true, no matter how many times it is repeated on social media.

_Brian

topcatcbr wrote: »

Not true.

If you're parents are self employed you will not get any assistance. There are many other cases which may stop u being able to avail of third level education.

I really hate the whole self employed get no support.

It's a personal decision to go down this route rather than traditional employment, if your chosen field doesn't provide for sending your children to college then rethink your choices, but it's not right to have at low paid workers availing of supports.

blanch152

PMBC wrote: »

Free secondary came about 63 - I know cos I got a Council school around same time. Free third level came about 68. I also benefited from that and have always been grateful to the ratepayers and taxpayers at the time who funded it. So you would be talking about over 65s.
Department of Finance and the greatly admired TK Whittaker weren't that happy as the Minister announced it without consulting them. Since then it has been seen to be a factor in this country's economic growth and foreign direct investment.
OK - what does free education mean now? Levies, registration fees, mandatory contributions etc.!

Wait a minute.


Free second-level education was only announced in 1966 and implemented in 1967.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/10/06/donogh-omalleys-1966-announcement-of-free-education-the-hidden-history/


Free third-level education wasn't available until 1996, brought in by Labour, and subsequently abolished by Fianna Fail in 2009.

TerrorFirmer

Lille16 wrote: »

Bar staff and waiters/waitresses are very underpaid and underappreciated in my opinion. I think its harsh and untrue to refer to either job as 'un-skilled'.

I think some people are missing the fact that un-skilled reflects a certain type of a role, it's not some sort of depreciative remark made against people in them.

A bar man or waiter is generally an unskilled position. It doesn't mean you don't get great barman and that there aren't some who earn a very good wage. It doesn't mean they don't work hard either. Nor does it mean that there are literally no skills involved.

The position itself is unskilled - anyone can do it, notwithstanding again the fact that some will be better than others.

My last job was unskilled and I was better at it than most people but I earned a lot more in that position than I do now as a semi-skilled worker.

PMBC

gossamer wrote: »

Cleaners, full-stop. The money starting out can be farcical. Part-time cleaning work is taxed to the balls, too. Not to mention the absolute state fully-functioning adults leave the toilets in, pigs would be easier to clean up after. It's a valuable service, I have no idea why they're not getting paid more.

From reading boards posts it seems hotel cleaners are treated disgracefully - same as UK

bear1

I'm surprised that the poster who started the other thread hasn't joined in on this one.
I'd have thought he'd have loads to offer on who is underpaid :rolleyes:
Completely agree re the nurses, undervalued and underpaid.

diomed

I can't answer as I don't know what everyone is paid.
My guess is everyone except Garda, HSE employees, public service.

PMBC

blanch152 wrote: »

Wait a minute.


Free second-level education was only announced in 1966 and implemented in 1967.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/10/06/donogh-omalleys-1966-announcement-of-free-education-the-hidden-history/


Free third-level education wasn't available until 1996, brought in by Labour, and subsequently abolished by Fianna Fail in 2009.

Thanks, I stand corrected Blanch. Third level grants came, so, in 1968. They replaced the old Council University scholarships which were much fewer in number.

diomed

PMBC wrote: »

Thanks, I stand corrected Blanch. Third level grants came, so, in 1968. They replaced the old Council University scholarships which were much fewer in number.

There were County Council scholarships for secondary school also, very few.