How do people feel about this one? Will it be short and sweet?
Mod warning:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121425200/#Comment_121425200
Brilliant, thank you! 😊 Yes, that is what I thought, and that is what makes most logical sense.
I haven't worked it out but you'd have to have been a CO for at least a few years, to not start on the 1st increment for an EO on promotion. "Over one and up one" would make sense then, but not when you are already earning less than the first point.
On another note, in trying to get clarity on the above, I have learned about the New Entrants deal, where anyone who started as CO, EO or HEO, after 2011(?) gets to skip points 4 and 8. Am I right in thinking that this follows you as you progress up the grades and it is your 4th year and 8th year of service, not necessarily in the one grade?
You'll start at the first point on the EO salary scale unless your current salary is above the first point of the EO salary scale. If you're current salary is above the first point of the EO salary scale you'll start at the increment point that is closest, and above, your current salary.
So you think I would move to the 2nd increment on the EO scale? I mean I understand that applying if I was on a much higher increment for CO but it is a big jump between CO's first couple of points and EO 1st point
It might be a case of moving over to the nearest equivalent salary above your existing salary and then up another point on scale. Over one and up one used to be the phrase I think.
Sorry, this is slightly off topic, but can any of you help me with how the increments work when you change grade? If you have one year's service as a Clerical Officer and then go onto the 2nd increment, but then move up to EO through an open panel, would you start on the 1st increment of the EO salary, or the 2nd increment due to having been in the CS for 1 year? I thought it was the former but I have just seen a post saying it is the latter?
I know that the salary has to be higher than the one you are currently on but obivously that would be the case with CO to EO for many increments if not all.
Read the post you quoted.
They may or may not have relevant experience.
Well the mimimum needs to be raised then! Entry level pay is not competitive (no public sector pay is competitive, really, but…)
You stated that new entrants should enter at the max of the scale?! How can anyone in any new role claim to be doing that job as well as, or better than, someone who has been doing that job already successfully for many years?
There's definitely core civil service areas, particularly policy based, where skills may not be transferable, but it's definitely not every CS role.
What if a new recruit worked as a legal secretary for 10 years and wanted to join as a CO. Is it ludicrous that they should start some ways up the ladder?
HR manager of Dunnes for 15 years took redundancy and wants to join as an EO? Ludicrous for them not to be at the bottom of the ladder?
I'm not really arsed about the issue but your comment is just wrong imo. The notion of zero years service being equivalent to zero experience is utter ignorance.
The local bargaining doesn't get implemented until Sept 2025. Would say it'll be a while yet before it's known.
Does anyone have any further info on the local bargaining or will it not be known how that's being used till closer to the time.
I thought your issue was the public sector trying to compete with the private sector for talent?
Starting at the minimum of the scale would be a bigger issue for most private sector workers who want to join the public sector than any percent increase on the bottom of the scale.
Or are you only concerned about public sector employees leaving for private sector?
A lot of skills are transferable. My youngest is a bit over 3 years out of college. He worked with an investment bank in Dublin for two years before travelling for 12 months. Became back.during the summer and is gone to a private investment firm in London. He did not start at the bottom of the ladder even though it's totally different work. He is actually earning double what he left the Dublin bank. He travelled for two reasons.
They have zero experience in the role.
They may or may not have experience from elsewhere which may or may not have any relevance to their role.
Saying that new recruits could join at the top of the scale is ludicrous.
They have 0 years service not zero experience
By definition any new entrant has zero experience. Not sure if your post is sarcasm
Well I definitely agree that new entrants to the civil service should be allowed to join at the top of the scale (depending on experience of course). Sounds like a good way to attract talent.
it's less than others will be getting and the public sector is competing with these good employers for talent - and failing.
There's the local bargaining at 1% for some (whatever that turns out to be)
Even then, between this year and last year, it's higher than a lot of private sector employees will be getting
It's 3% next year (2% March, 1% Aug)
A 4.25% increase this year and a 4% increase next year. Plus increments if eligible.
And that's for all civil and public sector. A lot of private companies won't be doing that.
Wages to grow 4.5% next year as Irish economy rebounds sharply, EY says
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/09/25/wages-to-grow-45-next-year-as-economy-rebounds-sharply-ey-says/
Not in the public sector.
Not sure why the attitude, it's always handy to have facts in black and white to stick in the craw of the public sector haters on here.
Inflation at a little over 2% and we’re getting 4.25% this year. It’s already closer than that 6% figure.
I didn’t say it would reverse it. I said it would “go a decent way”. It’s currently doing that….
But anyway, what’s interesting about the article? There’s nothing new that hasn’t already been stated in this thread months and months ago when the deal was negotiated.
There is not the slightest hope that the current pay deal is going to reverse that historic 6 per cent deficit, not even close.
Did you need an OECD report to tell you that? Seems like there’s nothing new with regards to salaries.
Certainly looks like the most recent deal will far outstrip inflation and go a decent way to getting us back to parity.
Well well well.
It shows that between 2015 and last year, salaries increased by 16 per cent in Ireland for secondary teachers with 15 years of experience. Most of this increase compensated for the rising cost of living.However, when adjusted for inflation, teachers’ salaries decreased by 6 per cent over the eight-year period compared to an average increase of 4 per cent across countries with available data.
It shows that between 2015 and last year, salaries increased by 16 per cent in Ireland for secondary teachers with 15 years of experience. Most of this increase compensated for the rising cost of living.
However, when adjusted for inflation, teachers’ salaries decreased by 6 per cent over the eight-year period compared to an average increase of 4 per cent across countries with available data.
Of course it's not just teachers but the entire public sector. No wonder recruitment and retention is in the toilet.
We really have to stop signing up to pay deal after pay deal that makes us poorer.
See also: https://www.gov.ie/en/circular/4a886-circular-082024-application-of-1-june-2024-pay-adjustments/
Its out.
ok thanks I'm paid monthly, will see if it kicks in, HR hasn't updated pay scales. thanks for reply.
