How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
What I say here is not wrong. It is why the chart came into the discussion in the first place.
So for some reason, people point to the growth in private pay including increments and want that same growth applied to public pay, excluding increments.
And this is why theres no point with you. A PhD from a HEI in Ireland but you dismiss it.
You just dont understand how averages work. You're ignoring people leaving the scale and new entrants. The average stays the same without pay increases if you have a large enough sample. This is going to shock you, the public sector and the private sector are large. The theory of big numbers applies. The sample isn't static. You're implicit assumption it is is just wrong. Everything you're saying in response to this particular topic is flawed and wrong.
Just to clarify - the data below is earnings data.
Earnings may increase for several reasons, for example:
The effects of increments in the PS are captured in this data
Of course it does.
Yet again, I have to cut through the spin and propaganda peddled by the majority on this thread.
The point was made to clarify that not all PS workers receive annual increments.
The data includes increments for all workers who receive them.
i think the clue is in top of scale
The exact same applies to the public role. If there are 10 points on the scale and ten people with that job title and all but the top get their increment, the average wage for that role has been moved upward. Do this across a few years and the average wage from the 1st year to the 5th year will show a percentage increase for the exact same role and exact same 10 people and exact same job title. This is what also drives up pay growth.
Mod:
No need for personal attacks; sentance removed.
I've never seen someone so confidentially state something that is incorrect. He is talking about average growth so you don't need to consider increments because the average will stay approximately the same across a grade. There can be upward drift but there can also be downward drift. The comparison between public and private via that graph is taking the scale at t=0 and multiplying it be the increase and comparing to the current scale at t=5 (in this case).
Source: I've a PhD in statistical modelling which, shockingly, requires a comprehensive understanding of basic statistics.
Way to go completely off tangent there. I see comprehension and analysis of stats is not one of your strong points.
I am not questioning increments.
I am pointing out that growth in private sector wages is including yearly increases that employees would have got anyway. So if Geuze is going to refer to those stats, then public increments should be included when comparing.
I wouldn't bother if I was you.
That poster is well aware how increments work given the dozens of times its been explained to them - probably hundreds of times with the amount of threads on C&PS terms and conditions they've posted on over the last decade, but they continue to ignore it and bleat on about increments.
It seems to be quite an obsession for them.
I fully agree , i miss the flexi haha
The game is completely up with you and it has been for ages.
When people discuss pay increases in the private sector its not on an individual basis like you are effectively claiming. It is the average wage for a particular role. It isn't a static wage. People in the private sector expect a year on year increase assuming they meet their goals. When there are pay increases in the private sector, it is a measure of the average wage for a particular role. As people exit the role and get promotions, new people enter and hence, the average wage remains unchanged.
However, I've no desire to get into a back and forth with yourself but your point is absolute nonsense.
I think it helped the National CyberSecurity Centre in using the Engineer Grade roles. But probably that's about it (and I think Eng 2 grade should be entitled to flexitime, grumble, grumble)
Did you challenge the poster about good faith when he was comparing pay increases in other sectors while ignoring the pay growth in the public sector due to increments already coming?
Yeah that would be incredibly frustrating. I thought the hse cyber attack would actually prompt change for us to have seen diff dedicated IT scales. Obviously not. Im sure it makes it so hard to recruit , retain and motivate.
I did just that for the better family life it gives but I am honestly getting annoyed by how understaffed we are (and seeing contractors doing less than me getting paid x2)
So yeah I would love the pay bump but more we can not attract (competent) staff at these salaries
They actually have an accounting/engineering grade but again its extremely rigid. IT is insane, Ive seen first hand how much places need to spend on consultants and contractors. Its a shame as well because people want to work for the public but not at half or less of the salary they can earn privately.
It's inexcusable to not have dedicated grades for IT or Finance.
The yearly increments are factored into taking in the job in the first place. My current role is 70k. With my experience so far i could get 85k in the private sector. I wouldnt have taken the role if their was no yearly increment. Its my salary getting a small bit closer each year to the private sector. Would you rather they scrapped the increments? Because i promise you that will cost a lot more. Edit , ive no idea why i bothered responding. You dont discuss the public sector in good faith.
It depends what they are doing , some ap accountants are heavily underpaid , im sure its the same for IT. Thats the problem with the grades in general , they are far too rigid.
Then it's the same for those in private sector stats Geuze is so keen to point to. If someone is at the top of their skillset or salary scale, they are will get a smaller payrise in percentage terms than the junior engineer moving from 2 years experience to 3 years experience.
And for those at the top, then they already have earned more during the past year than those behind who are getting larger increases in percentage terms.
If someone is at the top of their scale they do not get increments.
For private sector companies. these stats include yearly increments which employees could expect anyway. And that's even if the company operates such a model.
So if you're going to make comparisons in increases in pay between private and public, you have to include the yearly increment CS/PS workers would be getting anyway.
How very disingenuous of you and other contributors in this thread discussing pay increase percentages all the while completely ignoring the yearly increments you'd be getting anyway.
Ah fair enough. I've seen AO(H) used in public sector roles to try and offer a bit more than HEO.
I think compared to similar roles in the private sector, the starting point is low.
I mean someone on a AO(H) salary at max is close to the first point of AP scale and still has flexi leave. Going from HEO to AP, fair enough.
I've never come across someone who thought APs were underpaid.
AO Higher is only available to existing AOs, who get it because of seniority (so they already have multiple years at the low end of the standard AO scale) or through a competition against peers within their Department (but again, you've already served time at the low end of the standard scale). About 30% of AOs are on the higher scale https://forsatradeunion.newsweaver.com/designtest/p4hs0nt6b30
Is AO (Higher) not common in the Civil Service? Would that not be the better comparison to HEO?
Some merging or change to the grades could work but also create noise that no one wants to deal with.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/ee3bbaed7151f7c3b682bc3fc04ae67e.svg)
