Civil Service vs. Public Service

Godge wrote: »

Not true. A common misbelief which I have attempted to address a few times on boards.

The higher rate paid post-1995 was to compensate for the higher pension contribution. This was introduced at the same time as the higher PRSI.

Pension contributions went from 1.5% approx. to 6.5% approx and salaries were increased by 5% to reflect this. PRSI changed from 0.9% to 4% but the higher rate gave more benefits so no salary increase compensated.

The proof of this is seen in teachers salaries where there is only one salary rate because there was always a 6.5% pension contribution for teachers even before 1995. However, those teachers employed after 1995, while they saw no increase in pension contribution and no consequential increase in salary did have to pay the higher rate of PRSI.

I have linked in other posts to civil service circulars that set it out.

Nearly a year after I made my post you come along and challenge it.

The story is a bit more complicated than you say, because pension contributions for post-1995 recruits are less than 6.5%: the first tranche (2 x COAP) is levied at 1.5%, and the top slice at 6.5%. This is because of the integration of SW pensions into the combined superannuation package. Pay rates were adjusted to make the effect of the changes neutral.

It's very simple, Civil Servants work directly to a Minister.

Here is another anomaly.
I know that decentralisation is hardly spoken about anymore but there was a thing called the Central Applications Facility.
It was a kind of clearing house for staff to apply for jobs decentralised to other locations.
The way it worked was unusual though. A Civil servant could apply for a job in a Public service company, however a Public servant could not apply for a job in the Civil service.
It showed quite clearly that the CS is not the same as the PS.

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Sorry mate. As a tax payer I resent subsidizing either the civil service or public sector.

You pay taxes to pay for public services which are required by society.

They are all the same to me. Market forces are and should be the be all and end all.

That worked out great with Anglo Irish Bank, didn't it?

If it is justified, the market will provide it and if it is not justified the market will not support it and by the same token neither should the state.

:rolleyes:

so - pay the police private security to come around if you're in trouble. Pay extra for weekends or nights or if you want a 'premium response time'

private healthcare only, no money you die.

no dole, no pensions except private pensions

swipe your credit card before the fire pumps go on to put your house out. Just don't leave your wallet in there...

all private education, no education for the poor. But the market might find them jobs, pity most of us don't use chimneys any more...

What kind of so-called 'society' would that be? Sounds like a return to about the year 1800 to me.

Employee breakdown, of large multinationals and companies consist of, with the top with Senior Managers, bottom consisting of the lowest paid. Annual leave based on service. So employee breakdown symbol would be a triangle.

Public Sector/Civil Service Recruitment over the past 12 years employee recruitment consisting of little recruitment at the bottom, middle management an increase of between 100% and 150% with senior management seeing a recruitment increase of up to 400%. Facts were provided by the CSO. Does not make sense, more recruitment at middle and senior positions. Also the shocking horror is the higher the grade the more annual leave they get. Lower grades consist mainly of women and highest grades predominantly men, just like out political landscape. No wonder there is a huge budget deficit.

Semi-State employees have not received pay cuts, but actually received pay rises.

I stand corrected, I should have said some. To mention a few ESB, Bord Gais, An Post employees have received pay rises.