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

fliball123 · 07-01-2011 04:59PM

kceire wrote: »

its pointless debating with somebody that wont take actual facts into consideration. i over contribute to my pension currently and i would opt out at a moments notice.

i would be much better off in a private pension scheme similar to my PRSA that i had in the private sector.

another poster on heer posted that exact same story last year, i think you are now revealing what your previous username was

That was me john_boy something or other cant remember my exact sudoname

RobbieTheRobber · 07-01-2011 05:06PM

Do you think that the current scandal over 500+ patiients not emergancies but actual patients who neet do be there is right

I think scandal is very much a media term, I dont think its good thing i do accept that at presen becasue of miotgating circumstances people are getting sick and that has caused a problem with bed availability.

Or the xray scandals?

i dont know what this is.
Or the cancer scandals?

dont know!

Can you show me some of your links for either of these types of scandals in either Finland or the U.S?

I never mentioned them why should i show links?

If you wish i cna do some research and im sure i can uncover health scandals (as revealed by media)

Do our doctors and nurses get paid more than Finland or the US?

Indeed, is our miimum wgae lower or highe than finland(they dont have one).

but im sure our public sector nurses get paid 49% more than private sector nurses as per the thread title :rolleyes:

Gumbo · 07-01-2011 05:09PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Like I just said, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how your pension is (not)funded and you clearly have not taken my advice to go and see a financial adviser to receive the same (free advice) given here.

i have man, i sat with a consultant in Cornmarket Group and he actually said "jeez, i thought ye lot got better deals than this", maybe its because im a new entrant i dont know?

My PRSA from AIB in Rathgar is performing very very well, and is up about14-16% from what i put into it, but thats stopped now as i cant afford to pay both obviously. He said that i would be better off with the PRSA too but thats not an option.

as i said, i would opt out tomorrow if i could.

fliball123 · 07-01-2011 05:14PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Do you think that the current scandal over 500+ patiients not emergancies but actual patients who neet do be there is right

I think scandal is very much a media term, I dont think its good thing i do accept that at presen becasue of miotgating circumstances people are getting sick and that has caused a problem with bed availability.

Or the xray scandals?

i dont know what this is.
Or the cancer scandals?

dont know!

Can you show me some of your links for either of these types of scandals in either Finland or the U.S?

I never mentioned them why should i show links?
If you wish i cna do some research and im sure i can uncover health scandals (as revealed by media)

Do our doctors and nurses get paid more than Finland or the US?

Indeed, is our miimum wgae lower or highe than finland(they dont have one).

but im sure our public sector nurses get paid 49% more than private sector nurses as per the thread title :rolleyes:

There has been numerous scandals about people being diagnosed as being clear of cancer when they were not..Did you not hear of the (i think) 50k xrays which were not looked at?

My point of this whole thing was going on about p.s wage and how it was teetering from Scandal to Scandal...and yet under cpa the core wage is not cut......

You have redirected what I was getting at to try to prove to you how overly ineffecient our health service and p.s is yet all is protected under the cpa...

What has the minimum wage got to do with anything - misdirection once again

As for the 49% not sure about that but they are overly paid in comparison to both Finland and the U.S these are the 2 countries you directed to

And your right Scandal is a media term...To me its an fcuking disgrace...but unfortunately the papers cant use expletives

kaiser sauze · 07-01-2011 05:23PM

kceire wrote: »

i have man, i sat with a consultant in Cornmarket Group and he actually said "jeez, i thought ye lot got better deals than this", maybe its because im a new entrant i dont know?

My PRSA from AIB in Rathgar is performing very very well, and is up about14-16% from what i put into it, but thats stopped now as i cant afford to pay both obviously. He said that i would be better off with the PRSA too but thats not an option.

as i said, i would opt out tomorrow if i could.

:rolleyes:Cornmarket are not independent and they got in hot water for pushing people into private PRSAs and not making their (PS)clients aware of buying NS.

"Current performance is not an indicator of future returns"

^This does not apply to NS.

You need to have your advice checked out.

Seriously.

And, back to what I said at the start, you don't understand the system.

Gumbo · 07-01-2011 05:56PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

And, back to what I said at the start, you don't understand the system.

i understand it enough that i'd opt out if given the chance.
my payments do not copensate for what i will receive.

if i was a senior PS worker with a large pension, i understand that they are under funded by the staff member.

kaiser sauze · 07-01-2011 07:19PM

kceire wrote: »

i understand it enough that i'd opt out if given the chance.

You do not understand why this would be a terrible idea.

kceire wrote: »

my payments do not compensate for what i will receive.

Source?

You do not understand the system. If you did, you would not be saying things like this.

kceire wrote: »

if i was a senior PS worker with a large pension, i understand that they are under funded by the staff member.

WHAT??

Are you trying to say that not only will you not get back more than you put in, but that lower level staff members under-fund these pensions that are, quoteunquote, worth less than you put in?

---

The mind boggles.

Gumbo · 07-01-2011 07:27PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

You do not understand why this would be a terrible idea.

Source?

You do not understand the system. If you did, you would not be saying things like this.

WHAT??

Are you trying to say that not only will you not get back more than you put in, but that lower level staff members under-fund these pensions that are, quoteunquote, worth less than you put in?

---

The mind boggles.

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree, if you were in my position, you'd probably do your own thing, but my choice would be to leave it. i over fund my pension, i could get a better deal going private.

kaiser sauze · 07-01-2011 07:33PM

kceire wrote: »

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree, if you were in my position, you'd probably do your own thing, but my choice would be to leave it. i over fund my pension, i could get a better deal going private.

OK, so you have no source for your claims then?

"Case dismissed!"

Best of luck with your PRSA, keep an eye on it and move your funds around as market conditions change. You would have none of this hassle with NS.

hth

Gumbo · 07-01-2011 07:37PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

OK, so you have no source for your claims then?

"Case dismissed!"

Best of luck with your PRSA, keep an eye on it and move your funds around as market conditions change. You would have none of this hassle with NS.

hth

what claim did i make????????????
i gave my opinion, i dont need to back up an opinion..........

kaiser sauze · 07-01-2011 07:43PM

kceire wrote: »

what claim did i make????????????
i gave my opinion, i dont need to back up an opinion..........

kceire wrote: »

i understand it enough that i'd opt out if given the chance.
my payments do not copensate for what i will receive.

if i was a senior PS worker with a large pension, i understand that they are under funded by the staff member.

.

Gumbo · 07-01-2011 07:52PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

.

ohh yeah, if i lodged my 309e per month into a simple bank account i would have enough to cover my pension entitlements.

309 x 12 x 40 = 148,320
my actual PS pension is 6,969 per year.

even when i account for a lump sum of 57,000, i would still have 91,320 in an account, so give myself 6,969 per year, and i would have enough for 13.1 years of retirement.

thats just a simple bank account with no risk, no worries on market forces etc etc

if i was to open a private pension such as an example used on www.pensionsboard.ie my contributions of 309e per month would yield an approx pension of 188,807e, even more than the simple bank account, but we would be just guessing using that figure ans of course, stocks may fall aswell rise.

HTH

noodler · 07-01-2011 08:37PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

:rolleyes:Cornmarket are not independent and they got in hot water for pushing people into private PRSAs and not making their (PS)clients aware of buying NS.

^This does not apply to NS.

You need to have your advice checked out.

Seriously.

And, back to what I said at the start, you don't understand the system.

Are all PS pensions Defined Benefit?

dissed doc · 07-01-2011 10:02PM

fliball123 wrote: »

As for the 49% not sure about that but they are overly paid in comparison to both Finland and the U.S these are the 2 countries you directed to

Average salary for consultants in the NHS is £120k http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/salaries-of-nhs-consultants-soar-by-68-per-cent-2172588.html - which is considerably more net of tax than 170k in the public service in Ireland.

What is the extra bonus though is not money - it's the signifcantly less begrudgery for those who train for 15yrs+ to assist the public in the UK, compared to Ireland where "we can just import doctors from China by the crate" attitude - which has lead to hundreds of posts in the health service vacant with NO applications.

Money has less to do with things, then jealous small-minded begrudgery encountered on every media in Ireland.

kaiser sauze · 07-01-2011 10:10PM

noodler wrote: »

Are all PS pensions Defined Benefit?

Most pensions for those working before April 6th, 1995 are DB, they pay the old PRSI rate at class D and receive no state pension. When you compare what they contribute and what they receive it is an extraordinary benefit.

After that, the workers receive the state pension and have a scheme which is similar to a DC scheme, but calling it a DC scheme would be not recognising the certainty which a private DC scheme does not have. They pay PRSI at Class A. These workers pay more for the same benefit as the first group, but still do not fund anywhere near where a private sector worker would have to in order to receive the same.

In both cases, assuming full service, the worker get a tax free lump sum of 1.5 times their final salary and the only cap is that the annual pension, or state plus PS pension in the 2nd case, after that cannot be higher than 2/3rds final salary.

kaiser sauze · 07-01-2011 10:16PM

kceire wrote: »

ohh yeah, if i lodged my 309e per month into a simple bank account i would have enough to cover my pension entitlements.

309 x 12 x 40 = 148,320
my actual PS pension is 6,969 per year.

even when i account for a lump sum of 57,000, i would still have 91,320 in an account, so give myself 6,969 per year, and i would have enough for 13.1 years of retirement.

thats just a simple bank account with no risk, no worries on market forces etc etc

if i was to open a private pension such as an example used on www.pensionsboard.ie my contributions of 309e per month would yield an approx pension of 188,807e, even more than the simple bank account, but we would be just guessing using that figure ans of course, stocks may fall aswell rise.

HTH

KC, I have tried to be courteous, but on this medium I simply cannot explain how little you understand the system. I would need to be in front of you with graph, projections, actuarial tables and comparisons, but that would involve me charging you for my time.

I simply don't have time to spare for you.

The simple fact is this: no private sector scheme come close to what you will get from your current pension arrangement. This is not just limited to the amount you will receive; it is the guaranteed nature, the contribution levels for the returned benefit, the treatment on death and the early retirement options that are also available and more.

No longer hth.

avoidspammers · 07-01-2011 10:20PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The simple fact is this: no private sector scheme come close to what you will get from your current pension arrangement. This is not just limited to the amount you will receive; it is the guaranteed nature

Now that we are under the watchful eye of the IMF/EU, what with forensic quarterly reviews impending, I'm not so sure about the "guaranteed nature" of the PS pension anymore. A default would cast doubt over such guarantees.

A.S.

kaiser sauze · 07-01-2011 10:28PM

avoidspammers wrote: »

Now that we are under the watchful eye of the IMF/EU, what with forensic quarterly reviews impending, I'm not so sure about the "guaranteed nature" of the PS pension anymore. A default would cast doubt over such guarantees.

A.S.

There is some truth in this statement, but even I would not be in favour of ripping up contracts without coming to an agreement.

I want reform of pensions going forward, and if we can get an agreement on reforms retrospectively, even going back before April 1995 entrants, all the better.

avoidspammers · 07-01-2011 10:38PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I want reform of pensions going forward, and if we can get an agreement on reforms retrospectively, even going back before April 1995 entrants, all the better.

It is unlikely that retrospective reforms will happen through concensus via the PS Unions and the Govt/IMF/EU. That would have to be force-fed to the PS which would create a whole host of other problems.

There are creative ways around this PS pension deficit problem but they won't be found by pitting private and public sector against each other (I am not suggesting you are on either side btw).

A.S.

Citizen_Cutback · 08-01-2011 01:03AM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Most pensions for those working before April 6th, 1995 are DB, they pay the old PRSI rate at class D and receive no state pension. When you compare what they contribute and what they receive it is an extraordinary benefit.

After that, the workers receive the state pension and have a scheme which is similar to a DC scheme, but calling it a DC scheme would be not recognising the certainty which a private DC scheme does not have. They pay PRSI at Class A. These workers pay more for the same benefit as the first group, but still do not fund anywhere near where a private sector worker would have to in order to receive the same.

In both cases, assuming full service, the worker get a tax free lump sum of 1.5 times their final salary and the only cap is that the annual pension, or state plus PS pension in the 2nd case, after that cannot be higher than 2/3rds final salary.

Pre 1995 Public Servants pay a higher Pension contribution than post 1995 entrants so in effect both groups pay the same amount towards their pensions when taking relative PRSI payments into account.

finlma · 08-01-2011 12:04PM

I'm a teacher with 5 years experience and as of this week I take home €530 a week. Teaching is a skilled dedicated profession and we work extremely hard at our jobs. There are plenty of unskilled jobs on less hours that earn more than this. New entrants will be earning 10% less than this again - under €500 a week. You may think this is a well paid profession but I fail to see how.

WalterMitty · 08-01-2011 02:24PM

finlma wrote: »

I'm a teacher with 5 years experience and as of this week I take home €530 a week. Teaching is a skilled dedicated profession and we work extremely hard at our jobs. There are plenty of unskilled jobs on less hours that earn more than this. New entrants will be earning 10% less than this again - under €500 a week. You may think this is a well paid profession but I fail to see how.

leave and go to the private sector (for 12 months of year) if you think your skills and experience are so valuable.

finlma · 08-01-2011 02:51PM

WalterMitty wrote: »

leave and go to the private sector (for 12 months of year) if you think your skills and experience are so valuable.

I worked in the private sector for 6 years already. I could easily go back and I know I would be paid much better than I am but I love being a teacher.

avoidspammers · 08-01-2011 03:01PM

finlma wrote: »

I worked in the private sector for 6 years already. I could easily go back and I know I would be paid much better than I am

I doubt that very much in the current economic climate.

avoidspammers · 08-01-2011 03:08PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Most pensions for those working before April 6th, 1995 are DB, they pay the old PRSI rate at class D and receive no state pension. When you compare what they contribute and what they receive it is an extraordinary benefit.

Nonetheless, it is a benefit that every single person in the country had the chance to attain by applying for a job in the PS. I wouldn't like to bash the ordinary PS worker just because they have "benefits". PS workers actually are not allowed to pull out of the pension fund even if they wish which is madness.

AS

WalterMitty · 08-01-2011 03:49PM

avoidspammers wrote: »

Nonetheless, it is a benefit that every single person in the country had the chance to attain by applying for a job in the PS. I wouldn't like to bash the ordinary PS worker just because they have "benefits". PS workers actually are not allowed to pull out of the pension fund even if they wish which is madness.

AS

Why should the private sector, which ultimately pays for the public sector be subject to the vagaries of market place and international labour competition but public servants are'nt? If the private sector adopted all the terms and conditions of the public sector it would lose massive amounts of business and jobs and there would be no wealth to pay for public sector! Whats good for the goose and all that.

doc_17 · 08-01-2011 04:08PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Most pensions for those working before April 6th, 1995 are DB, they pay the old PRSI rate at class D and receive no state pension. When you compare what they contribute and what they receive it is an extraordinary benefit.

After that, the workers receive the state pension and have a scheme which is similar to a DC scheme, but calling it a DC scheme would be not recognising the certainty which a private DC scheme does not have. They pay PRSI at Class A. These workers pay more for the same benefit as the first group, but still do not fund anywhere near where a private sector worker would have to in order to receive the same.

In both cases, assuming full service, the worker get a tax free lump sum of 1.5 times their final salary and the only cap is that the annual pension, or state plus PS pension in the 2nd case, after that cannot be higher than 2/3rds final salary.

What effect does the universial social (insert expletive) charge have on this? Is it not universial then? are people paying at different rates?

finlma wrote: »

I'm a teacher with 5 years experience and as of this week I take home €530 a week. Teaching is a skilled dedicated profession and we work extremely hard at our jobs. There are plenty of unskilled jobs on less hours that earn more than this. New entrants will be earning 10% less than this again - under €500 a week. You may think this is a well paid profession but I fail to see how.

Are you primary or secondary?

noodler · 08-01-2011 04:11PM

avoidspammers wrote: »

Nonetheless, it is a benefit that every single person in the country had the chance to attain by applying for a job in the PS.

Bullsh1t reasoning.

The issue is can the state afford the costs associated with the public sector.

Gumbo · 08-01-2011 04:17PM

noodler wrote: »

Bullsh1t reasoning.

The issue is can the state afford the costs associated with the public sector.

in all due respect, thats your Bullsh1t opinion.

noodler · 08-01-2011 04:30PM

kceire wrote: »

in all due respect, thats your Bullsh1t opinion.

Lets look at it logically.

Public Sector Pay as a proportion of the Exchequer revenue is too high.

You honestly think an appropriate argument is "well you could have gotten into the Public Sector if you wanted to / tried hard enough".

How does that address the overarching issue here?

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

Comments