How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
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 think the clue is in top of scale
The data includes increments for all workers who receive them.
The point was made to clarify that not all PS workers receive annual increments.
Of course it does.
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.
Yet again, I have to cut through the spin and propaganda peddled by the majority on this thread.
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
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.
What I say here is not wrong. It is why the chart came into the discussion in the first place.
Then you can't have it both ways.
You either knock off a few percentage points for increases employees would have got routinely anyway so that you're left with the inorganic growth in sector pay, or you include the increments public employees get when calculating the growth in their pay as part of pay deals.
OK, I get you now, you are not saying that the data in the chart excludes the effects of increments in the PS.
You are saying that if, say, the ICT sector get 9% in the data, then the PS should not be asking for 9%, as the 9% in ICT includes the impact of increments in ICT.
Fair enough.
You don’t have to…in fact I’d bet my next increment and upcoming increase from any pay deal that everyone contributing to this thread would be happy for you to keep your nonsense out of it.
and not all increments actually include a pay increase - workers could get an increment for 3 or 4 years in a row on some scales with no pay rise attached
It's flawed.
You don't understand a very basic mathematical concept. Averages.
You do realise that the incremental scale is there for the state to make money as they get a service at a much lower price for the less experienced?
If you do not want an incremental scale then there has to be one payment for all at the same price......and that's going to be a much higher cost.
So, by all means, end the incremental salary scales and thus increase the present salaries for the vast majority.
I was simply stating a fact that not all PS workers get an annual increment. Nothing to do with the reasons behind increments, or abolishing them, that appears to be something you came up with in your own head.
Apologies.
PS - the ones who don't get annual increments are the ones doing very nicely indeed.
I'd love if they stopped increments. Why should I wait 10 years to get paid anything reasonable for my role?
The long service increments after 3 and 6 years are more annoying. Pure civil service getting rewarded for being in the role for a long time and nothing about your abilities.
I actually can't imagine being so small minded I can't put myself in other people's shoes and realise the importance of trying to improve the situation for all grades so as to benefit the overall operating of the CS/PS. Having the CS/PS continue to be attractive for new staff (an employer of choice, as they like to say themselves), is very important to keep the machine running smoothly. So anyone who actually thinks at least a little bit will give a **** about things beyond their own salaries.
Hard to know how much longer the State can give Public Sector Workers a Guaranteed DB Pension at retirement, virtually all private Sector workers are on DC arrangements , its about time public sector workers were the same
Then pay will need to increase. For every move to the private style then pay/bonuses/health-care etc will need to balance it.
I'm already underpaid enough thanks
I work in education. There is no scale below me.
I don't care what HEO's AP's etc get paid. Its literally nothing to do with me. The same way I don't care what computer programmers or plumbers get paid.
I'm just being honest that I'll vote for what benefits me. Absolutely no need for the insults. Its an opinion.
That's fair enough, but don't be surprised if there are HEOs, APs and more in Dep of Finance and elsewhere that do care what teachers get paid, and not in a good way!
No new CS/PS employees have been offered a DB scheme for over a decade. The Single Scheme is an integrated scheme. This means that someone with a yearly pension of say €20k, up to about €13k of that will be the state pension. So the CS pension will be worth about €7k a year. As most CS staff are COs, the above will be a very average scenario.
Why would they? I don't understand the public sector structure, I don't need too. I've no idea what an HEO or an AP does. Hence, why would I care what they get paid?
Do I care what other people in education get paid? Sure! I see the effects. Would it alter how I vote? No. I'll vote for my interests. I believe most people vote selfishly. I very much think I am in the majority.
I am a member of the Union because it suits me. It benefits me and my average pay is higher in the Union.
Integrated pensions are in place for everybody who’s joined the public service since 6 April 1995. That’s coming up on 30 years worth of recruits
The Single scheme removed the element of final salary in pension calculations from 2011 on. Instead it uses an averaged scale over the career of public servants to decide their pension
They’re still both DB pensions though. Any argument against them usually boils down to a weird gripe with public servants rather than any interest in cost savings though. As has been pointed out if they were to be changed, the likely cost to the state in other areas (pay, recruitment, etc) would be significantly more
I hate your post
Well, if anything this post makes a good argument for why the different sectors should probably be separated.
This point needs to be made often as there is a belief out there that increments are never ending.
I think negotiating public pay as a whole makes sense. It's just the the average increase across all grades.
When people start mentioning specifics here about entry grades and flexi time etc i frankly don't care. It will never effect me.
Honestly, can anyone here give me a reason to care what a HEO or AP get paid? It's literally nothing to do with me.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/ee3bbaed7151f7c3b682bc3fc04ae67e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
