Its official : public sector pay per hour is 49% higher than private sector

fliball123 · 14-12-2010 02:04PM

Riskymove wrote: »

a 20% once off across the board paycut for the PS would be catastrophic for large parts of the private sector imo

How striking ...explain...how saving 20% accross the board that the average tax payer does not have to pay?

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 02:04PM

fliball123 wrote: »

The other point here is that didnt lenny put a 250k cap on P.S wages therefore trying to get rid of the skewedness of the p.s ...r

a tiny fraction of the PS would be paid that level

fliball123 · 14-12-2010 02:06PM

Riskymove wrote: »

a tiny fraction of the PS would be paid that level

So then your talking arse with regards to skewdness really...if your argument is that the average is not a good basis for the p.s pay as its skewed at the top and yet when I say that the 250k cap tries to bring that skewdness back into place you say there is only a small amount getting that...And there are always people on here saying that they dont earn over 28k in the p.s...its stink risky it really does there needs to be a serious look at the wages and it needs to be chopped

ei.sdraob · 14-12-2010 02:06PM

Why dont the CSO just bloody release more detailed stats? what the hell are we paying them for tip toeing around the issue

how hard can it be to release the earnings distribution by earnings and subsection of the PS; mean, median , quartiles, outliers etc

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 02:08PM

fliball123 wrote: »

How striking ...explain...how saving 20% accross the board that the average tax payer does not have to pay?

you would not reduce deficit by 20% as a result of such a cut as you would reduce tax take

then, buying power of 300,000 households would be severly reduced resulting in a decrease in spending on private firms and services resulting in even more job losses and tax take declines

we are all in the same economy

AlphaBeagle · 14-12-2010 02:08PM

Why cant both private & public sector workers focus on the real tyrant that caused us to be in this mess in first place. (The Goverment & their lackys in the banks)
They divide us they conquer us. We need to get onto streets & protest as a ppl not private vs public sectors arguing who gets paid more... just seems petty.

fliball123 · 14-12-2010 02:12PM

Riskymove wrote: »

you would not reduce deficit by 20% as a result of such a cut as you would reduce tax take

then, buying power of 300,000 households would be severly reduced resulting in a decrease in spending on private firms and services resulting in even more job losses and tax take declines

we are all in the same economy

By that logic then we should all be paying 20% tax...doesnt wash Risky...we need to lower costs ...my tax is paying your wage and it is no longer sustainable..tax take is at the point of diminishing returns...the last thing this country needs is to tax the private sector so much that it disincentivises and they leave the country.

sollar · 14-12-2010 02:19PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I used to think the same but I don't anymore.

If that was the case, the IMF / EU would have been fixated about it. The facts are they didn't give a cr*p about it. The biggest problem by far is the banks.?

Yes, if anything the EU/IMF team would have been horrored at the social welfare bill currently at 40% of government spend and of course the big black hole that is the banks.

They don't do begrudgery so the PS paybill, which stands at 16 billion gross according to the figures published in the 4 year plan by the dept of finance wouldn't stand out as much to them.

Japer · 14-12-2010 02:22PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I did not saying all PS workers are being overpaid...I think across the board paycuts are counter-productive and a lot more focussed work is required

Do you think public service workers, doing the same job, should be
(A) paid less than private sector workers, who do not have the same pensions or security
(B) paid the same as private sector workers
(C) paid 49% more than private sector workers, as at the moment ?

Bear in mind , when deciding the answer, the government is not ( as Colm McCarthy says ) short of compassion, it is desperately short of money !

n.b. Answer (A) is the reply in most countries. Any countries that answer that do not have the IMF in.

n.b. of course social welfare etc should be cut too - why should someone get double in Dundalk what they get in Newry ?

P. Breathnach · 14-12-2010 02:32PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Why dont the CSO just bloody release more detailed stats? what the hell are we paying them for tip toeing around the issue

how hard can it be to release the earnings distribution by earnings and subsection of the PS; mean, median , quartiles, outliers etc

I imagine it is because there are people who might take the figures and misuse them. See the opening post in this thread for an illustration.

ei.sdraob · 14-12-2010 02:34PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I imagine it is because there are people who might take the figures and misuse them. See the opening post in this thread for an illustration.

How is providing more transparency (aint that their job, seems like they are not doing a good job, again) and figures lead to misuse

surely the data/stats would speak for itself

Cookie_Monster · 14-12-2010 02:36PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I imagine it is because there are people who might take the figures and misuse them. See the opening post in this thread for an illustration.

the more detail the harder it is to misuse.

It very easy to compare average wages with no other factor involved and say public are overpaid / underpaid / whatever. when you have a more detailed breakdown such broad strokes are harder to justify

Twin-go · 14-12-2010 02:48PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Why dont the CSO just bloody release more detailed stats? what the hell are we paying them for tip toeing around the issue

how hard can it be to release the earnings distribution by earnings and subsection of the PS; mean, median , quartiles, outliers etc

If you look at the sample size on the CSO site:

Public Sector Sample is 320, Private Sector is 5000 and Insurance and Banking was 100.

Not really a good repersentation for any of the sectors considering the spread of earnings.

irishh_bob · 14-12-2010 02:49PM

dissed doc wrote: »

Private sector doctors make considerably more than their public sector counterparts.

thats because private sector doctors ( GP,s etc ) dont opperate in the free market , they operate in a highly protectionist sheltered sector of the economy

ei.sdraob · 14-12-2010 02:54PM

Does anyone have the latest figure for the TOTAL spend on the public sector?

hows this for a comparison of whether we are getting value for money

1. sum up the {EARNINGS/BONUSES/PENSIONS/EXPENSES} for the public sector
2. calc this as % of GNP
3. compare to the %eges in other EU states

that way we can compare like for like and see if we are getting value for money as taxpayers.

i don't care what these people get, i do care whether they are as productive as others

P. Breathnach · 14-12-2010 03:38PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Does anyone have the latest figure for the TOTAL spend on the public sector?

hows this for a comparison of whether we are getting value for money

1. sum up the {EARNINGS/BONUSES/PENSIONS/EXPENSES} for the public sector
2. calc this as % of GNP
3. compare to the %eges in other EU states

that way we can compare like for like and see if we are getting value for money as taxpayers.

i don't care what these people get, i do care whether they are as productive as others

That reinforces my point about misusing data. Such methodology would take no account of differences in what is comprised in the public sector in different EU states.

ei.sdraob · 14-12-2010 03:44PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That reinforces my point about misusing data. Such methodology would take no account of differences in what is comprised in the public sector in different EU states.

Oh how dare I ask for clearer information :rolleyes: from people whose job it is to provide statistics.

Maybe we should all shut up and stop discussing the subject since you have all the data and have made an informed opinion but are unwilling to share the data with us mere private sector mortals.

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 03:53PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That reinforces my point about misusing data. Such methodology would take no account of differences in what is comprised in the public sector in different EU states.

The stats requested also would have nothing to say about relative productivity

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 03:57PM

[

QUOTE=Japer;69554272]Do you think public service workers, doing the same job, should be

as you well know jimmmy/japer but pretend not too, there are not many private sector and ps workers doing same job and that applies to most other countries too

(C) paid 49% more than private sector workers, as at the moment ?

one wonders what it would actually take for you to stop deliberately misrepresenting the statistics

how many other threads have you posted this on today?

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 03:59PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

.

Maybe we should all shut up and stop discussing the subject since you have all the data and have made an informed opinion but are unwilling to share the data with us mere private sector mortals.

are you of the opinion that there could not possibly be flaws in the methodology you propose?

can you not take some constructive criticism of your proposal without over-reacting?

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 04:02PM

fliball123 wrote: »

.if your argument is that the average is not a good basis for the p.s pay as its skewed at the top and yet when I say that the 250k cap tries to bring that skewdness back into place you say there is only a small amount getting that...

No its just that the 250k is at such a high level it would not affect many people and therefore not the average too much (unless there were people on really high levels)

there would not be a high percentage of the private sector over 250k either

ei.sdraob · 14-12-2010 04:11PM

Riskymove wrote: »

are you of the opinion that there could not possibly be flaws in the methodology you propose?

can you not take some constructive criticism of your proposal without over-reacting?

Of course there could be flaws I am trying to be constructive here with what little we are given

but I am not the one holding the data here, but a public body run by public servants refusing to release detailed data on public pay :rolleyes: how convenient

@PB said that more data would be open to "abuse" I fail to understand how more transparency can lead to more confusion, if yee lot have nothing to hide then why the worry?

if there is nothing wrong with public sector pay as the (ex)publicservants here claim then why all the secrecy in releasing more detailed stats?

yee lot had no issues benchmarking yourselves up before and got all the data and stats from somewhere :mad:

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 04:18PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but I am not the one holding the data here, but a public body run by public servants refusing to release detailed data on public pay :rolleyes: how convenient

if you think there is data collected by the CSO that is not published please indicate what it is.

AFAIK they publish what they collect in their surveys, same as for private sector

yee lot had no issues benchmarking yourselves up before and got all the data and stats from somewhere :mad:

benchmarked ourselves?? of course we did:rolleyes:

1. sum up the {EARNINGS/BONUSES/PENSIONS/EXPENSES} for the public sector
2. calc this as % of GNP
3. compare to the %eges in other EU states

everything needed for this is published openly

ei.sdraob · 14-12-2010 04:28PM

Riskymove wrote: »

if you think there is data collected by the CSO that is not published please indicate what it is.

AFAIK they publish what they collect in their surveys, same as for private sector

benchmarked ourselves?? of course we did:rolleyes:

everything needed for this is published openly

* Their past reports on the public sector where much more detailed with breakdown by sector (gardai etc)

* I could understand the difficulty in collecting forms from private sector (i filled out plenty for em before) BUT how hard can it be to access PS payroll data or ask the heads of relevant depts for key data/summaries?

The CSO is one quango which would be ripe for being scrapped, all they do is collect, analyse and provide information/census, and they are doing a ****ty job, why exactly does this work have to be done by the public body in first place?

for the money they are spending (50-60million a year) you could run several competing companies who could collect, store, process check each others data to do this

Is transparency too much to ask in this day and age?

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 04:34PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* Their past reports on the public sector where much more detailed with breakdown by sector (gardai etc)

thats a seperate release which will also come out

* I could understand the difficulty in collecting forms from private sector (i filled out plenty for em before) BUT how hard can it be to access PS payroll data or ask the heads of relevant depts for key data/summaries?

PS would be no different than private sector similar size firms

again, a survey is sent to PS and private and they are completed and sent back and stats published

all ps payscales are published and so on

whats all this talk about secrecy?

for the money they are spending (50-60million a year) you could run several competing companies who could collect, store, process check each others data to do this

I have no view on outsourcing or privitisation

Is transparency too much to ask in this day and age?

not at all but the CSO does, as far as I can see, publish the data it gathers from firms

ei.sdraob · 14-12-2010 04:43PM

Riskymove wrote: »

all ps payscales are published and so on

whats all this talk about secrecy?

Provide is with a distribution graph of PS earnings earnings so :rolleyes:

give us the mean, median etc

there must be someone in CSO who sat Stats101 and realises that their releases are rubbish without more info/analysis
A central statistics office that is unable to provide clear stats, only in Ireland.

rickyjb · 14-12-2010 04:46PM

As far as I can see both of ye are getting paid too much as ye both seem to have far too much time on ye're hands...:D

Riskymove · 14-12-2010 04:47PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Provide is with a distribution graph of PS earnings earnings so :rolleyes:

give us the mean, median etc

the problem then would be the survey would it not?

it requests weekly averages pay only, from what I can see

oh yes.....sorry....I almost forgot.....:rolleyes:

ardmacha · 14-12-2010 04:48PM

`Provide is with a distribution graph of PS earnings earnings so

give us the mean, median etc

How would this help? In any case do your own research.

RGS · 14-12-2010 04:49PM

To give some context to the discussion:
A stat from an EU study on public service provision in member states:
Figure 3: Level of public spending (1996, 2006) as percentage of GD:
Ireland less than 40% in 1996 reduced to just over 30% in 2006
UK over 40% for both 1996 and 2006.
Highest spending country 2006 Sweden--over 50%

Only 8 countries were below 40% in 2006:
Romania, Estonia, Lithuania, Ireland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain,

link: ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/.../publication11902_en.pdf -

I assume there is a more upto date table available somewhere.

Its official : public sector pay per hour is 49% higher than private sector

Comments