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

Gumbo · 08-01-2011 04:46PM

noodler wrote: »

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?

we are in the first year of a 4 year recovery plan, PS pay bill has already been reduced greatly reduced in the first year. its on target and the pay bill will reduce again this year.

thats not enough for some people, they want other peoples wages reduced and will not be happy until that happens. the overall pay/pension bill is being reduced, and not to drag up a crappy CIE slogan, but "were getting there".

noodler · 08-01-2011 04:48PM

kceire wrote: »

we are in the first year of a 4 year recovery plan, PS pay bill has already been reduced greatly reduced in the first year. its on target and the pay bill will reduce again this year.

It is being reduced from a much higher level though.

The four year recovery plan? Please.

Lets see if the PS can make any real savings by the September deadline the IMF set.

kceire wrote: »

thats not enough for some people, they want other peoples wages reduced and will not be happy until that happens. the overall pay/pension bill is being reduced, and not to drag up a crappy CIE slogan, but "were getting there".

Pure jibberish.

Gumbo · 08-01-2011 04:58PM

noodler wrote: »

It is being reduced from a much higher level though.

Lets see if the PS can make any real savings by the September deadline the IMF set.

just like everything else is at a higher level, car insurance, home insurance, price of shopping etc, all private sector services that have risen this year and every year for the last 3.

September deadline will be interesting alright, but i know for a fact that seom PS departments have already made the savings needed, and some have made the savings in the 2010 calender year already. DCC for example will receive 10% less from the Local government Fund in 2011.

but we wait and see if were all loaded into the same pot again and everybody tarred with the same brush.

noodler wrote: »

Pure jibberish.

dropping to insults again.....its this kind of narrow mindness and begrudgery that is rampant on these forums, nice for amusement though.

noodler · 08-01-2011 05:12PM

kceire wrote: »

just like everything else is at a higher level, car insurance, home insurance, price of shopping etc, all private sector services that have risen this year and every year for the last 3.

?

The Government keeps its own house in order.

If the Government is spending €18.75bn a year more than it is taking in then something is wrong.

Whether or not we can afford existing public sector pay bill is always ingored in this discussion

kceire wrote: »

September deadline will be interesting alright, but
i know for a fact that seom PS departments have already made the savings needed, and some have made the savings in the 2010 calender year already. DCC for example will receive 10% less from the Local government Fund in 2011.

Really, that is very strange considering virtually no progress was reported in being made - in fact weren't the various proposals on cost-savings and efficiencies only published by the various departments in Nov/Dec?

kceire wrote: »

September deadline will be interesting alright, but
i know for a fact that seombut we wait and see if were all loaded into the same pot again and everybody tarred with the same brush.

More deflecting from the point. It doesn't matter how often I or anybody else here says that the blunt x% cut from everybody isn't fair or desirable - only that the ultimate bill be reduced.

kceire wrote: »

dropping to insults again.....its this kind of narrow mindness and begrudgery that is rampant on these forums, nice for amusement though.

If you make a point unrelated to to argument then I cam going to call you on - calling it jibberish is not an insult. The post not the poster. Stop trying to deflect again.

Gumbo · 08-01-2011 05:41PM

noodler wrote: »

?

The Government keeps its own house in order.

If the Government is spending €18.75bn a year more than it is taking in then something is wrong.

thats fair enough, but isint this being sorted in the National Recovery Plan, and hence the 4 years of tough budgets?

18.75Bn for 2010, but 2011 shall be reduced even further IIRC.

noodler wrote: »

More deflecting from the point. It doesn't matter how often I or anybody else here says that the blunt x% cut from everybody isn't fair or desirable - only that the ultimate bill be reduced.

isint this whats currently happening?
Overall PS bill reduced in 2009, 2010 and more than likely 2011 again.

noodler · 08-01-2011 06:35PM

kceire wrote: »

thats fair enough, but isint this being sorted in the National Recovery Plan, and hence the 4 years of tough budgets?

18.75Bn for 2010, but 2011 shall be reduced even further IIRC.

Nobody thinks the deficit will be 3% by 2014 - even the Commission recently extended our deadline 2015.

There are alot of variables in the NRP - and of course alot of cuts.

I honestly don't see us getting the spending other control without further cutting the pay bill.

kceire wrote: »

isint this whats currently happening?
Overall PS bill reduced in 2009, 2010 and more than likely 2011 again.

The Pension Levy was long overdue.

By cutting pay for new entrants, reducing the PS pension for new members, the moratorium etc yes you are absolutely right.

However, obviously a huge amount of those policies are only going to have negligable effects in the short term. Also, I'd personally prefer more public servants on lower wages than less public servants on higher wages.

kaiser sauze · 08-01-2011 08:36PM

noodler wrote: »

<insert series of logical arguments here>

I dunno if it was you I said to, but it really is pointless debating financial issues with kceire.

Save yourself, as I have. Give him/her their hollow internet victory and stop wasting your valuable time.

kaiser sauze · 08-01-2011 10:02PM

doc_17 wrote: »

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

The USC is universal, apologies for my lack of clarity. It is payable on all gross income and BIK.

PRSI is still here also, and that is payable at different rates.

avoidspammers · 08-01-2011 10:34PM

noodler wrote: »

There are alot of variables in the NRP - and of course alot of cuts.

I honestly don't see us getting the spending other control without further cutting the pay bill.

How many times will you reiterate your agenda, sorry I mean your point. I suggest you move on from this relentless lobbying. It is taking from meaningful debate here on boards.

AS

avoidspammers · 08-01-2011 10:47PM

noodler wrote: »

Also, I'd personally prefer more public servants on lower wages than less public servants on higher wages.

This is nothing short of anti-PS rubbish. Also, the first part of that statement is currently being implemented so why are you throwing in silly things like "less public servants on higher wages" - Irrelevant codswallop.

AS

noodler · 08-01-2011 11:31PM

avoidspammers wrote: »

How many times will you reiterate your agenda, sorry I mean your point. I suggest you move on from this relentless lobbying. It is taking from meaningful debate here on boards.

AS

avoidspammers wrote: »

This is nothing short of anti-PS rubbish. Also, the first part of that statement is currently being implemented so why are you throwing in silly things like "less public servants on higher wages" - Irrelevant codswallop.

AS

There is nothing more pathetic than trying to portray someone as having an agenda because they are not telling you what you want to hear. I mean it is clear you have a vested interest in this and yet I have never called you greedy, irresponsible or anything of the sort.

My agenda is the public finances of the country.

Does the ESRI have an agenda too?

http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2848

The main points if you are too lazy to read the paper.
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015576.shtml

How about the OECD?

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/irish-public-sector-workers-among-worlds-highest-earners-50628.html

When economists, think tanks, media and a majority of the public are against you, it actually makes it far more likely that you are the one with an agenda.

ardmacha · 08-01-2011 11:49PM

it actually makes it far more likely that you are the one with an agenda.

Do you not think that someone in 2011 who links data from 2008 as if it was current has an agenda? This should be a serious forum, you cannot take seriously someone posting deliberately misleading data. If someone else posted data from 2008 to show that there wasn't a problem with the public finances then they'd (correctly) be laughed at.

If your agenda is the public finances of this country then what revenue raising proposals have you mentioned recently?

noodler · 08-01-2011 11:58PM

ardmacha wrote: »

Do you not think that someone in 2011 who links data from 2008 as if it was current has an agenda? This should be a serious forum, you cannot take seriously someone posting deliberately misleading data. If someone else posted data from 2008 to show that there wasn't a problem with the public finances then they'd (correctly) be laughed at.

Don't tell absolute lies now.

5% pay cut and a 6.5% PS pension levy since and the ESRI report would still imply a gap. You have to remember that (Gross) average PS pay levels still increased in 2009 right up until the budget 2010.

Similarly, the OECD report is more recent and shows a gap.

Any attempt to use the year of date of the ESRI report to somehow show there is not still a problem is an outright lie on your behalf.

Ronan Lyons:

or example, a 2008 study by the ESRI showed that, holding things like occupation level, job type and experience constant, the degree to which the public sector enjoyed a premium over the private sector varied from 10% at the top to 30% for other grades. This corroborated evidence from the time of the initial benchmarking exercise in 2002 that – contrary to sentiment and popular belief within the public sector – pay differentials, and their consequences for recruitment and retention, were not significant issues in the public sector in the period 2000-2002. Research by Frances Ruane and myself found that if anything the pay differential was skewed in favour of the public sector, something which seems indisputably to have been the case all along. Now, the latest figures from the CSO have been analysed and Davy have found – again! – that grade for grade, age for age, hour for hour, the public sector enjoy a huge premium of anything up to 70% (on a per hour basis) over their private sector colleauges

ardmacha wrote: »

If your agenda is the public finances of this country then what revenue raising proposals have you mentioned recently?

I would focus the majority of the adjustment on cuts as this is empirically has lesser negative effect on demand.

But in pure revenue raising terms lowering the tax credits and bands was probably a better way to go than increasing the rates outright. There is a property tax coming but I don't it is coming soon enough nor is it going to raise enough revenue.

ParkRunner · 09-01-2011 12:28AM

noodler wrote: »

Don't tell absolute lies now.

5% pay cut and a 6.5% PS pension levy since and the ESRI report would still imply a gap. You have to remember that (Gross) average PS pay levels still increased in 2009 right up until the budget 2010.

But in pure revenue raising terms lowering the tax credits and bands was probably a better way to go than increasing the rates outright. There is a property tax coming but I don't it is coming soon enough nor is it going to raise enough revenue.

In the first paragraph it is true gross pay for the PS pay and pensions bill increased overall in 2009. The net bill in 2009 decreased.
The cuts you mention in the second paragraph relate to net costs so pick one or the other

WalterMitty · 09-01-2011 12:31AM

noodler wrote: »

Don't tell absolute lies now.

5% pay cut and a 6.5% PS pension levy since and the ESRI report would still imply a gap. You have to remember that (Gross) average PS pay levels still increased in 2009 right up until the budget 2010.

Similarly, the OECD report is more recent and shows a gap.

Any attempt to use the year of date of the ESRI report to somehow show there is not still a problem is an outright lie on your behalf.

Ronan Lyons:

I would focus the majority of the adjustment on cuts as this is empirically has lesser negative effect on demand.

But in pure revenue raising terms lowering the tax credits and bands was probably a better way to go than increasing the rates outright. There is a property tax coming but I don't it is coming soon enough nor is it going to raise enough revenue.

There is not only the pay premium in public sector there is the pension benefit which many people in private sector were unaware of before the crash as pensions are boring enough at best of times. Why cannot we have benchmarking 3 where the total value of pay pension etc are compared and adjusted in Public sector where they are miles ahead even after the measly cuts of past few years.

ardmacha · 09-01-2011 12:56AM

Any attempt to use the year of date of the ESRI report to somehow show there is not still a problem is an outright lie on your behalf.

The use of the term "outright lie" is unacceptable, but perhaps not unexpected as the tone of your argument is predjudical rather than factual. I pointed out that you were using out of date data without an reference to the fact that it was out of date, but rather misrepresented as if it were the current situation.

I refer to the charter

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

Please withdraw your allegation that I posted an outright lie and indicate your accceptance that using out of date data does indeed undermine your argument.

Gumbo · 09-01-2011 01:14PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I dunno if it was you I said to, but it really is pointless debating financial issues with kceire.

Save yourself, as I have. Give him/her their hollow internet victory and stop wasting your valuable time.

You really have a high opinion of yourself don't ya?????
I've back up all my points with actual up to date and correct figures, not data from a report 3 years old an yet you still try nit pick because you may have a different opinion than myself. That's what public forums are for, you had your opinion, I have mine.

The_Thing · 09-01-2011 07:13PM

Japer wrote: »

As another poster asked, does that mean you've done 14% less work (or whatever the cuts have been so far) thus far?.....

Does your car go faster or slower when you take your foot off the accelerator?

fliball123 · 10-01-2011 01:32PM

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.

Maybe if teachers were not double jobbing and had such long holidays. I find it incredible that for the summer months whilest most are earning more on a 2nd job they still get paid for scratching there holes

fliball123 · 10-01-2011 01:37PM

kceire wrote: »

we are in the first year of a 4 year recovery plan, PS pay bill has already been reduced greatly reduced in the first year. its on target and the pay bill will reduce again this year.

thats not enough for some people, they want other peoples wages reduced and will not be happy until that happens. the overall pay/pension bill is being reduced, and not to drag up a crappy CIE slogan, but "were getting there".

7-10% (not including pension levy here as its a contribution to a defined benefit)

Not really major when you consider that the majority (95%) of new signs on in the last 3 years are of the private sector + with income tax down this year even with people paying more income tax one of the main reasons for this is people in the private sector having thier pay cut

fliball123 · 10-01-2011 01:50PM

ardmacha wrote: »

The use of the term "outright lie" is unacceptable, but perhaps not unexpected as the tone of your argument is predjudical rather than factual. I pointed out that you were using out of date data without an reference to the fact that it was out of date, but rather misrepresented as if it were the current situation.

I refer to the charter

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

Please withdraw your allegation that I posted an outright lie and indicate your accceptance that using out of date data does indeed undermine your argument.

Ard the other point is that in the same 3 years income tax is also down so the money coming in to pay the p.s is also down so any decreases in pay for the p.s has been well been overtaken by the amount of money the gov is taken in on taxes, despite the fact that taxes have indeed been increased in the period between 2008/2011...but this fact seem to be missed by all in the p.s

noodler · 10-01-2011 01:55PM

ardmacha wrote: »

The use of the term "outright lie" is unacceptable, but perhaps not unexpected as the tone of your argument is predjudical rather than factual. I pointed out that you were using out of date data without an reference to the fact that it was out of date, but rather misrepresented as if it were the current situation.

I refer to the charter

If you are going to level allegations of lying at another poster, please be willing to prove that they are lying - that they deliberately intend to deceive. Simply calling someone a liar is not acceptable.

Please withdraw your allegation that I posted an outright lie and indicate your accceptance that using out of date data does indeed undermine your argument.

I believe it is only a lie if you are trying to use the ESRI report to imply that a PS wage premium still exists? If you are sticking to that - then I have nothing to apologise for.

Please grow up and do not mislead people into thinking a report is irrelevant because it was published 2 years ago (ESRI), one year ago (Davy) or in 2010 (OECD). The points contained in all three are very relevant.

noodler · 10-01-2011 01:57PM

kceire wrote: »

You really have a high opinion of yourself don't ya?????
I've back up all my points with actual up to date and correct figures, not data from a report 3 years old an yet you still try nit pick because you may have a different opinion than myself. That's what public forums are for, you had your opinion, I have mine.

Unbelievable.

There are three reports. One from 2008, 2009 and 2010.

What are your up to date figures?

Even with the ESRI report it is plain to see the wage cuts and PS pension levy do not reduce the premium paid in the PS.

The absolute cheek of you.

fliball123 · 10-01-2011 02:02PM

noodler wrote: »

Unbelievable.

There are three reports. One from 2008, 2009 and 2010.

What are your up to date figures?

Even with the ESRI report it is plain to see the wage cuts and PS pension levy do not reduce the premium paid in the PS.

The absolute cheek of you.

I share your frustration there Noodler...Its crazy the likes or Ardmacha do not even acknowledge that income tax take is down continuously over the last 3 years aswell which means the funds to actually pay the bills is diminishing ... Then add in the bailout and the repayments and the gap will probably increase not decrease... and like I have said the 4 main areas where our taxes go

Social welfare
Pensions
Public sector core pay
public services

all 4 have gone down between 2008 - 2010 but with the cpa the other 3 were hit in the last budget and will continue to be hit but no hit for the ps core pay till after 2014...

Can the p.s not see how unfair and unmaintainable this is?

ardmacha · 10-01-2011 04:13PM

I believe it is only a lie if you are trying to use the ESRI report to imply that a PS wage premium still exists? If you are sticking to that - then I have nothing to apologise for.

As per the charter please show that I deliberately intend to deceive, or withdraw the implication that I posted an outright lie. Please stop using FF type evasion, proof or withdrawal is all that is required.

For the record I am not using the ESRI report to imply that a PS wage premium still exists, you are the person doing this.

noodler · 10-01-2011 04:38PM

ardmacha wrote: »

As per the charter please show that I deliberately intend to deceive, or withdraw the implication that I posted an outright lie. Please stop using FF type evasion, proof or withdrawal is all that is required.

For the record I am not using the ESRI report to imply that a PS wage premium still exists, you are the person doing this.

Ah the usual sh1te from the PS when someone tells them the overall pay bill is too large. You must be a banker, a FF supporter or whatever.

You said I must have an agenda if I was linking to a two-year old report (despite the fact I linked to a 2009 and 2010 report as well but you decided not to mention these ones).

That was a lie. Apologise at your leisure.

ardmacha · 10-01-2011 05:33PM

You must be a banker, a FF supporter or whatever.

I may be these things, although the Bertie style analysis has been coming from you rather than anyone else. However I am not a poster of outright lies, which you refuse to acknowledge (as required by the charter), preferring to avoid the point in a obsfucatory waffle worthy of Gerry Adams.

Recant, Sir, or be off to After Hours.

You said I must have an agenda if I was linking to a two-year old report

I posed the question if you had an agenda. I did not accuse you of lying.
The continued use of out of date data, without comment, as if it was current, is a blight on this forum.

fliball123 · 10-01-2011 05:36PM

ardmacha wrote: »

I may be these things, although the Bertie style analysis has been coming from you rather than anyone else. However I am not a poster of outright lies, which you refuse to acknowledge (as required by the charter), preferring to avoid the point in a obsfucatory waffle worthy of Gerry Adams.

Recant, Sir, or be off to After Hours.

I posed the question if you had an agenda. I did not accuse you of lying.
The continued use of out of date data, without comment, as if it was current, is a blight on this forum.

Noodler in fairness to Ardmacha I have completely different view and he is normally good for not lying ..but Ard you have left out quite a bit of the commentary and links that noodler provided...Stop arguing lads and get back on point

noodler · 10-01-2011 05:56PM

ardmacha wrote: »

I may be these things, although the Bertie style analysis has been coming from you rather than anyone else. However I am not a poster of outright lies, which you refuse to acknowledge (as required by the charter), preferring to avoid the point in a obsfucatory waffle worthy of Gerry Adams.

Recant, Sir, or be off to After Hours.

I was not calling you a banker or a member of FF - I was saying that is the usual response by some members of the PS when they feel they are being threatened.

I have nothing to recant about so let this be the end of that.

ardmacha wrote: »

I posed the question if you had an agenda. I did not accuse you of lying.
The continued use of out of date data, without comment, as if it was current, is a blight on this forum.

Oh, so people wouldn't have clicked through and seen themselves? The big 2008 beside the report? Or the bug 2009 beside the Davys one? Or the big 2010 beside the OECD one?

The data is still very relevant as are the points made - I won't let somone pretend otherwise for the sake of their vested interests.

ParkRunner · 10-01-2011 07:29PM

fliball123 wrote: »

I share your frustration there Noodler...Its crazy the likes or Ardmacha do not even acknowledge that income tax take is down continuously over the last 3 years aswell which means the funds to actually pay the bills is diminishing ... Then add in the bailout and the repayments and the gap will probably increase not decrease... and like I have said the 4 main areas where our taxes go

Social welfare
Pensions
Public sector core pay
public services

all 4 have gone down between 2008 - 2010 but with the cpa the other 3 were hit in the last budget and will continue to be hit but no hit for the ps core pay till after 2014...

Can the p.s not see how unfair and unmaintainable this is?

I can't understand the frenzy surrounding cutting "core public pay". The cost to the exchequer of public sector pay has gone down significantly following the last budget with the reduction of tax bands and credits. It has had a similar impact as a paycut! The cost of public sector pay will also continue to fall over the lifetime of the CPA

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

Comments