What is "low paid"?

pietromas · 30-03-2010 10:37PM #1

Everybody else seems to know because they are always talking about the "low paid" workers. I want to know so I can join in the conversation. Is it different in the public and private sectors?

sceptre · 30-03-2010 10:47PM

There's no formal definition.

Some organisations define "low paid" as being below a level they regard as an adequate living wage. At least in the UK, that's the definition the trade unions generally use and they set that figure themselves.

More organisations define "low paid" as being gross hourly earnings of less than 60% of gross hourly median full-time earnings (shortly put: take the figure at which half the working population is above or below and multiply it by 60%). While this figure is generally lower than the "adequate living wage" definition, it's more generally accepted, as well as being less arbitrary. Economic institutes and other such organisations use this figure.

As for what people here generally mean, well, erm, probably one of the above two or a vague figure they made up. I like the second definition above.

Eliot Rosewater · 30-03-2010 10:54PM

(My post deals with the phrase in the way its more likely to be used on Boards.ie)

"Low paid" is a subjective phrase that is usually defined by a person so as to suit their political outlook. The trade unions, for example, will typically claim their workers are "low paid" because it will suit their demands for higher wages. Employers, on the other hand, will say their workers aren't lower paid so that they can keep the current wage levels. The term then starts to lose any objective meaning. This is the same process by which words like "fairness" and "equality" have become close to meaningless in a political context.

baalthor · 30-03-2010 10:58PM

A union leader (CPSU I think) stated on RTE today that the government now officially recognises low pay as being less than €35k per year :eek:

Crazy Taxi · 30-03-2010 11:00PM

What is low paid?

Me for a start:(:(:(

If the govt is saying below 35k is low paid I must qualify as poverty stricken.

danman · 30-03-2010 11:03PM

So according to the CSO, the average wage in Ireland in 2009 was €36,318.36.

So 60% of that is €21,791.016.

Would that be right?
That seems very low.
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=EHQ03.asp&TableName=Earnings+and+Labour+Costs&StatisticalProduct=DB_EH

cson · 31-03-2010 12:20AM

Still €400 odd quid a month after the small bit of tax if any and PRSI you'll pay. You'd live handy enough off that sans mortgage and family to support. There are people on training contracts who'd love to be on that. It's all relative to your circumstances imo.

Edit: As an aside, there is nothing wrong with low paid jobs per se. The Unions and Media seemed to have hammered home the point that low paid = bad. Not necessarily; some jobs are so rudimentary and basic that they should be in that bracket.

sceptre · 31-03-2010 01:20AM

danman wrote: »

So according to the CSO, the average wage in Ireland in 2009 was €36,318.36.

So 60% of that is €21,791.016.

Would that be right?
That seems very low.
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=EHQ03.asp&TableName=Earnings+and+Labour+Costs&StatisticalProduct=DB_EH

Well, that's the mean, not the median. The two figures probably aren't far apart though (I don't have the median figures unfortunately but thanks for the mean one (no pun intended:))

View · 31-03-2010 01:58AM

It depends on if you are public sector or not.

It is perfectly possible to be "low paid" by public sector worker standards yet be "well paid" by the standards of private sector workers (or former private sector workers).

The explanation for this is that the average public sector worker earns more than the average private sector worker. This discrepancy is most pronounced at lower wage levels but persists through all levels.

WalterMitty · 31-03-2010 02:03AM

View wrote: »

It depends on if you are public sector or not.

It is perfectly possible to be "low paid" by public sector worker standards yet be "well paid" by the standards of private sector workers (or former private sector workers).

The explanation for this is that the average public sector worker earns more than the average private sector worker. This discrepancy is most pronounced at lower wage levels but persists through all levels.

True, also the PS union types include people doing part time jobs who might be on a good hourly wage but only work around 20 hrs a week as "low paid" .

nesf · 31-03-2010 03:04AM

danman wrote: »

So according to the CSO, the average wage in Ireland in 2009 was €36,318.36.

So 60% of that is €21,791.016.

Would that be right?
That seems very low.
http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=EHQ03.asp&TableName=Earnings+and+Labour+Costs&StatisticalProduct=DB_EH

That sounds about right tbh. I think most people would agree that 21K a year would be fairly low pay. Versus the crazy union definitions of 35K and other silliness.

dan_d · 31-03-2010 08:11AM

This is a question that I keep asking and never seem to get even an indication of what this is.

I know that there is no actual scale or definition of it.....but if you have a union like the CPSU representing "lower paid public servants" then surely it follows that they have some sort of definition of exactly what a lower paid PS gets.

And how does it compare to what "lower paid" private workers get? Personally, I'm on about 38K. I have my suspicions I'd be at the higher end of the lower paid scale in the PS. But I'd be interested to know!

(I should add that I think 38k is quite a good wage by most people's standards - though maybe not when taken in conjunction with the hours I work and what I do. But that's my choice - and it would be interesting to see the public service view of it)

ParkRunner · 31-03-2010 09:07AM

dan_d wrote: »

(I should add that I think 38k is quite a good wage by most people's standards - though maybe not when taken in conjunction with the hours I work and what I do. But that's my choice - and it would be interesting to see the public service view of it)

Having started out on the lowest Clerical Officer pay myself, at the time it paid ok because I was living at home with the parents. It is all relative though. Buying a place or renting anywhere half decent was out of the question so I had to share a house with 3 others in the end to move out. I got a battered old opel corsa too but the insurance cost more than the car!

On another point the disposable income for a person on the lowest CO pay will be about 14% less than their private sector counterpart. It is going into a decent pension but when you are starting off in your 20's, pensions are not really a priority.

It depends what you want out of life I suppose. If you are happy to share an apartment (rent), have a bike to get around, don't go away on holidays, not have health insurance and have a quiet social life you could get by on low CO pay. Whereas if you want to own a house, a car and go on a few holidays every year and have a very active social life those things alone would be out of reach without needing to take on a second job.

ei.sdraob · 31-03-2010 09:19AM

EF wrote: »

Having started out on the lowest Clerical Officer pay myself, at the time it paid ok because I was living at home with the parents. It is all relative though. Buying a place or renting anywhere half decent was out of the question so I had to share a house with 3 others in the end to move out. I got a battered old opel corsa too but the insurance cost more than the car!

On another point the disposable income for a person on the lowest CO pay will be about 14% less than their private sector counterpart. It is going into a decent pension but when you are starting off in your 20's, pensions are not really a priority.

It depends what you want out of life I suppose. If you are happy to share an apartment (rent), have a bike to get around, don't go away on holidays, not have health insurance and have a quiet social life you could get by on low CO pay. Whereas if you want to own a house, a car and go on a few holidays every year and have a very active social life those things alone would be out of reach without needing to take on a second job.

you see in the real world people have to work harder and gain more skills to get these, not sitback and point a gun to the citizens of this country and/or get "benchmarked" for no productivity gains

also you have not mentioned the job security factor, that's a huge variable which is highly important and can provide stability

OMD · 31-03-2010 09:29AM

EF wrote: »

Having started out on the lowest Clerical Officer pay myself, at the time it paid ok because I was living at home with the parents. It is all relative though. Buying a place or renting anywhere half decent was out of the question so I had to share a house with 3 others in the end to move out. I got a battered old opel corsa too but the insurance cost more than the car!

But how old were you at this stage? I went to college and then obviously started working at the bottom. I was over 30 before I could afford not to house share and I was 29 when I bought my first car, a second hand one obviously. I don't think I am unusual. A "low paid " clerical officer aged 30 with 11 years service and no promotion earns €35,000. This is a hell of a lot more than I was earning aged 30 and is just about average wage.

I should add I would never have considered myself low paid

ParkRunner · 31-03-2010 09:39AM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you see in the real world people have to work harder and gain more skills to get these, not sitback and point a gun to the citizens of this country and/or get "benchmarked" for no productivity gains

also you have not mentioned the job security factor, that's a huge variable which is highly important and can provide stability

Not necessarily. I worked in retail too for five years and by working the night shift when it was available I was effectively taking home about 45,000 a year. I was doing the same job but just doing it at night.

Since I started in the civil service I have studied on a full time basis, while working full time, and have gone on many training courses. I think it is impossible to work for a few years in public or private sector in any case without acquiring new skills and increasing productivity through experience, unless you are totally lazy and unwilling to apply yourself and learn new skills.

Job security I agree holds more value now than it did before but those who worked hard and gained skills in the last few years will have a much better chance of holding onto their job or getting a new job if they are made redundant, compared to those who "satback and pointed a gun to the citizens of this country" charging extraordinary prices for their services, while not seeking to diversify their skills

ParkRunner · 31-03-2010 09:52AM

OMD wrote: »

But how old were you at this stage? I went to college and then obviously started working at the bottom. I was over 30 before I could afford not to house share and I was 29 when I bought my first car, a second hand one obviously. I don't think I am unusual. A "low paid " clerical officer aged 30 with 11 years service and no promotion earns €35,000. This is a hell of a lot more than I was earning aged 30 and is just about average wage.

I should add I would never have considered myself low paid

I was 24 when I started, with a degree and postgrad diploma under my belt. I had applied for a lot of jobs and sat the public service exams at the time just because they were on. I passed them and passed the interview so the opportunity was there for the taking. I was nearly 28 before I could afford not to houseshare so it is not that much different to yourself, but that includes being promoted.

A CO earning 35,000 will have to have worked for 12 years and they wont get to 36,700 before they work 15 years. I agree it is not a bad wage, but after 15 years full time work I think it is reasonable to expect to be on a half decent wage if you are any good at your job and have put in the effort.

OMD · 31-03-2010 10:07AM

EF wrote: »

A CO earning 35,000 will have to have worked for 12 years and they wont get to 36,700 before they work 15 years. I agree it is not a bad wage, but after 15 years full time work I think it is reasonable to expect to be on a half decent wage if you are any good at your job and have put in the effort.

The problem is even if you are not very good at your job and put in no more than the minimum required you still get this rate of pay.

I don't really have a problem with the amount earned but it means if you put in 40 years at the lowest level in Civil service your pay will on average be above national average pay. Yet this group is consistently referred to as low paid.

Tim Robbins · 31-03-2010 10:49AM

Low range is minimum wage.
However even if you earn a decent wage if you have a celtic tiger mortgage you a very low disposable income.

e.g. say you earn 2,700 after tax and your mortgage is 1,300.
That's say 1,400 to live on for the month which ain't much. Similarly if you have to support kids and partner on that as well it's even less.

murphaph · 31-03-2010 10:49AM

EF wrote: »

A CO earning 35,000 will have to have worked for 12 years and they wont get to 36,700 before they work 15 years. I agree it is not a bad wage, but after 15 years full time work I think it is reasonable to expect to be on a half decent wage if you are any good at your job and have put in the effort.

The bit in bold is crucial, and it is wrong to apply it in a blanket fashion.

If you are a binman or streetsweeper or night watchman (absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is), should your salary just creep up to €35k because you have been a good worker, never sick etc? I don't think so.

If you are working in an area with a limited set of responsibilities (and I would include basic clerical work in there), then your starting wage should go up with inflation but not be increased "because you have more experience" because it only takes a certain (short) amount of time to learn these responsibilities.

If you are working in a dynamic environment and each project you do contributes to your ability to do the next project, then experience counts (a doctor, nurse or an architect, engineer etc. even Gardai would probably see a noticable increase in their usefulness just by experience).

If we are to argue that a CO who knows a particular government deptartment's protocols really well should get increases based on experience, then shouldn't they have reductions when systems are completely overhauled and they have to start learning again?

In short, one's salary should NOT just increment because you've managed to hang around a job long enough. The job should require that experience counts before it should have a bearing on pay increases.

donkey balls · 31-03-2010 10:49AM

this is what i call low paid so called professional truck driver 70e a day(and expect to work upto 15hrs for it).
:rolleyes:

dan_d · 31-03-2010 11:14AM

Ok, so what we're very roughly saying is that "low paid" would start around minimum wage, and runs to approximately between 35 and 40k in the civil services. That's not taking into account length of time worked.

From the conversations here, it would appear that in the public service, 35k is considered low because you'd have to work about 15 years to get to that. In the private service, this consideration seems not to be taken into account....probably due to the fact that you get out of a job what you put into it.

I'm not criticising. I am simply trying to get a better picture of the background against which the phrase "lower paid" is used. Obviously it's all relative to what's going on in the workplace around you. But, as the OP said, we keep hearing about the "lower paid". To me, lower paid would be min wage to maybe 28/30k...and that's assuming someone has absolutely no other financial commitments at all. While you may consider yourself lower paid on 40k, because you're struggling to meet your commitments, it should probably be taken into account that most people enter into financial commitments on the basis of their "lower paid" salary. Most people start getting the salary, then taking out the loans, as opposed to taking out the loans and then getting the salary. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation in some ways.

The problem unions have developed in the last number of years, is that, as murphaph points out, lower paid jobs crept up in salary on the basis of years worked and inflation. While the celtic tiger lasted, there was a basis for this in some ways. However we now have a situation where say, as mentioned before, binmen and street sweepers, labourers and block layers (not criticising those careers) are "entitled" to X amount of pay, so much so that they frequently outstrip the pay of those who are in charge/supervising them, and so carrying more responsibility. At the risk of sounding like a complete snob, education is always touted as a way to get further in life and make more of yourself. Yet we created a situation in recent years where you were often financially better off NOT getting an education. We've also created a culture where people feel entitled to "rights", but are totally unwilling to accept any extra responsibility that might come with those rights.

Again, I am not criticising. I am trying to look at the facts and figures surrounding the different ideas for pay as dispassionately as possible. As someone who is currently looking for a job aswell, I find it very difficult to know what level to pitch my salary expectations at. I know my current salary (after a paycut), I know my experience (nearly 5 years), I know my degree, I know my outgoings, and how much I could theoretically exist on with them. What I don't know is how low/high I should pitch myself in current market conditions, and as with the OP, what exactly would class as "lower paid".

danman · 31-03-2010 11:15AM

donkey balls wrote: »

this is what i call low paid so called professional truck driver 70e a day(and expect to work upto 15hrs for it).
:rolleyes:

I have to agree with the poster above you. And no disrespect, but driving a truck wouldn't seem to me to me to be a skilled job. You would only need to know how to drive.

The only problem with this, is I know that truck driving can involve a lot of manual labour.
I do think anyone who's job involves manual labour does deserve a certain premium over someone in an unskilled job that sits at a desk.

That's only my personal opinion.

shoegirl · 31-03-2010 11:24AM

sceptre wrote: »

More organisations define "low paid" as being gross hourly earnings of less than 60% of gross hourly median full-time earnings (shortly put: take the figure at which half the working population is above or below and multiply it by 60%). While this figure is generally lower than the "adequate living wage" definition, it's more generally accepted, as well as being less arbitrary. Economic institutes and other such organisations use this figure.

Thats right. As I recall the last CSO survey that actually reported on the median wage suggested it was 29k pa at that time (it is almost certainly less now).
60% of this would be 17,400pa which is very close to the minimum wage.
Technically anybody working a 40 hour week couldn't really legally be earning less unless they were under 21 or had no experience.

So much for the nonsensical notion that "low paid" (quoting the latest public sector pay negotiations here) is 35k pa - a figure which is itself above the so-called "average industrial wage" oft quoted in ERSI and CSO publications.

shoegirl · 31-03-2010 11:26AM

danman wrote: »

I have to agree with the poster above you. And no disrespect, but driving a truck wouldn't seem to me to me to be a skilled job. You would only need to know how to drive.

The only problem with this, is I know that truck driving can involve a lot of manual labour.
I do think anyone who's job involves manual labour does deserve a certain premium over someone in an unskilled job that sits at a desk.

That's only my personal opinion.

Thats not quite the case - a truck requires a higher level of licence than an ordinary joe soap with a B licence. There is a considerably higher level of skill for somebody with a D licence over and above a B licence that deserves some bit of a premium.

"Unskilled" job that sits at a desk - what is that? Most desk based jobs aside from merely answering a phone - require some kind of skills, though in my own arena (IT support) I do think the actual skill level required is considerably less than maybe 10 years ago and I would regard anybody who hasn't built on their skills over this time as unskilled.

ParkRunner · 31-03-2010 11:27AM

OMD wrote: »

The problem is even if you are not very good at your job and put in no more than the minimum required you still get this rate of pay.

I don't really have a problem with the amount earned but it means if you put in 40 years at the lowest level in Civil service your pay will on average be above national average pay. Yet this group is consistently referred to as low paid.

murphaph wrote: »

The bit in bold is crucial, and it is wrong to apply it in a blanket fashion.

If you are a binman or streetsweeper or night watchman (absolutely no disrespect to anyone who is), should your salary just creep up to €35k because you have been a good worker, never sick etc? I don't think so.

If you are working in an area with a limited set of responsibilities (and I would include basic clerical work in there), then your starting wage should go up with inflation but not be increased "because you have more experience" because it only takes a certain (short) amount of time to learn these responsibilities.

If you are working in a dynamic environment and each project you do contributes to your ability to do the next project, then experience counts (a doctor, nurse or an architect, engineer etc. even Gardai would probably see a noticable increase in their usefulness just by experience).

If we are to argue that a CO who knows a particular government deptartment's protocols really well should get increases based on experience, then shouldn't they have reductions when systems are completely overhauled and they have to start learning again?

In short, one's salary should NOT just increment because you've managed to hang around a job long enough. The job should require that experience counts before it should have a bearing on pay increases.

From these two posts the biggest problem is the performance management system in the civil service and I agree it needs to be improved so that those who put in the hard work get the rewards and those who are not willing to apply themselves, learn new skills and adapt to changing situations do not get their increments.

From my experience, experience does count for a lot in the civil service. Someone who has built up knowledge of practices, legislation, systems and people in various departments will be able to offer a lot more in terms of providing a service to the public and to management than someone who is just starting off.

cson · 31-03-2010 11:31AM

danman wrote: »

I have to agree with the poster above you. And no disrespect, but driving a truck wouldn't seem to me to me to be a skilled job. You would only need to know how to drive.

The only problem with this, is I know that truck driving can involve a lot of manual labour.
I do think anyone who's job involves manual labour does deserve a certain premium over someone in an unskilled job that sits at a desk.

That's only my personal opinion.

Disagree with that. Truck driving is a skilled job imo. You don't just 'have to know how to drive'. You have to get the various licences and pass the tests to get these which ain't easy and ain't cheap - you then have a skill that a lot of people don't have. It's a stressful job too I'd imagine so I'd rate it as a skilled job. To qualify this, I wouldn't rate clerical work as skilled - answering phones, typing letters and inputting data for the most part could be taught to anyone within 2-3 days in my opinion.

shoegirl · 31-03-2010 11:35AM

dan_d wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like a complete snob, education is always touted as a way to get further in life and make more of yourself. Yet we created a situation in recent years where you were often financially better off NOT getting an education. We've also created a culture where people feel entitled to "rights", but are totally unwilling to accept any extra responsibility that might come with those rights.

Thats a good point, but I work in a group where only 2 of us have full time 3rd level out of a group of 10. We are being laid off in a few months time and basically the only 2 of us getting calls back are myself and the other girl with 3rd level. The others are not getting callbacks full stop and we reckon their CVs are being screened out because its simply way easier to only READ the 20% or so of CVs that have 3rd level AND 5-10 years experience rather than wade through 200-300 with one or the other but not both.

In my long experience I found that having both experience and qualifications could be key to getting an interview in an extremely competitive employment market, but the lack of need for qualifications was only the case because there was such huge demand for entry level workers in many business areas. Some of my colleagues got into IT having nothing more than a leaving cert and a year or two of working in retail or security. Those that used their years of experience to study part time or gain professional qualifications are now finding themselves far better placed than those with no qualifications at all.

This of course will probably revert next time there is close to "full employment." Its cyclical and while it might seem unfair to treat a worker with considerable effort to educate themselves - especially if they did so part time during full time employment - the same as somebody who never bothered their hole and/or thought themselves so essentially superior to everybody else that they were above it - the market does sort this out quite crudely.

shoegirl · 31-03-2010 11:41AM

sceptre wrote: »

Well, that's the mean, not the median. The two figures probably aren't far apart though (I don't have the median figures unfortunately but thanks for the mean one (no pun intended:))

Thats right. Median last time CSO quoted it was 29k I think.

I forgot to point out also that it would also depend on where you live. 29k in Letterkenny will go much further than 35k in Dublin for example. Plus you move from the lower to upper tax band at 34k. Anything over this is taxed for single people at nearly 50%.

murphaph · 31-03-2010 11:45AM

EF wrote: »

From my experience, experience does count for a lot in the civil service. Someone who has built up knowledge of practices, legislation, systems and people in various departments will be able to offer a lot more in terms of providing a service to the public and to management than someone who is just starting off.

and these people I have no problem getting pay increases based on experience, but there must be a tangible benefit to the employer that has been derived from the experience alone to warrant automatic increments, and I think we are agreed on that if I'm not mistaken.

I don't want a public service that is useless. I want a motivated one, where the individuals can be rewarded based on effort (and where relevant their experience). I absolutely don't want the current system where blanket increments are applied to the fantastic staff as well as the deplorable. The wasters exist in the private sector too, but the difference seems to be that they are rapidly found out and rapidly left behind.

In any job I ever workerd in, there was a limited pot of money given to a department by higher management based on revenues. This pot would then be divided up by the various section managers etc. until finally each line manager received their allocation, to award to staff as they saw fit: useless ones got no increase. Good ones got most of the money. There is no better way, but the managers need to have set targets to meet, before they themselves get any pay increase and before their department gets an allocation. It might be difficult, but only a target linked pay structure will really motivate a large bulk of workers in either public or private sector.

The problem is that the union sub from a waster is as valuable to the union as the same sub from a top performer, so union policy tends to protect the wasters instead of rewarding the workers, as it should be. I suggest that without unions, the good workers in the PS would do better financially, as it should be.

baalthor · 31-03-2010 11:55AM

shoegirl wrote: »

Thats not quite the case - a truck requires a higher level of licence than an ordinary joe soap with a B licence. There is a considerably higher level of skill for somebody with a D licence over and above a B licence that deserves some bit of a premium.

On the 'learning to drive' forum someone said that having the truck license was the equivalent of having a degree - and they weren't joking ...
In a free market, incomes are ultimately determined by the supply of labour.

What is "low paid"?

Comments