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

macannrb · 11-01-2011 04:40PM

Riskymove wrote: »

I have outlined the 4 year plan to close the deficit

Can you link please? I had a scroll through your posts and couldn't spot it

or perhaps you'd suggest how we might save €10bn off PS bill this year

Cut 5% -10% of wages up to 40k. cut 50% of wages between 40-60k, cut 60% of wages above this point, ie someone on 100k, gets a cut of 4k on the first 40k, 10k on the next 20k, and 24k on the next 40k. Slash pension entitlements, anything over 40k, cut at 70%. And freeze the accrual of further pension years. Remove wages for those sitting on boards of quangos.

Rid the state of useless entities which don't have any positive effect on the country, eg the senate (another debate to be fair I know, but how many bills has it stopped ever?)

€10bn (welfare) to be saved here too, how would you like to do it?

Half entitlement across the board. Welfare is far more generous here the the UK. And since we dont have the money for it, we need to slash it. Plain and simple.

I know well that this would mean a lot of hardship, but the fact of the matter is we can't afford it, and the longer we let the status quo remain, the further in debt we become.

My suggestions are dramatic, but this is a national emergency, and the title of this thread does certainly suggest that wages in the PS need to come down. But so those a lot of the goods the Government buys, rent, garda cars, etc etc

ParkRunner · 11-01-2011 05:30PM

macannrb wrote: »

Can you link please? I had a scroll through your posts and couldn't spot it

Cut 5% -10% of wages up to 40k. cut 50% of wages between 40-60k, cut 60% of wages above this point, ie someone on 100k, gets a cut of 4k on the first 40k, 10k on the next 20k, and 24k on the next 40k. Slash pension entitlements, anything over 40k, cut at 70%. And freeze the accrual of further pension years. Remove wages for those sitting on boards of quangos.

Rid the state of useless entities which don't have any positive effect on the country, eg the senate (another debate to be fair I know, but how many bills has it stopped ever?)

Half entitlement across the board. Welfare is far more generous here the the UK. And since we dont have the money for it, we need to slash it. Plain and simple.

I know well that this would mean a lot of hardship, but the fact of the matter is we can't afford it, and the longer we let the status quo remain, the further in debt we become.

My suggestions are dramatic, but this is a national emergency, and the title of this thread does certainly suggest that wages in the PS need to come down. But so those a lot of the goods the Government buys, rent, garda cars, etc etc

I expect your suggestions would lead to 1) default on personal debt/mortgages requiring more bank recapitalisation 2) anarchy 3) widespead industrial action 4) massive poverty 5) massive unemployment

Treehouse72 · 11-01-2011 06:19PM

God, this debate is always so depressing.

.

To the public sector folk, first, thank you for educating our kids, minding our parents in hospital, processing our dole cheques, administering our government and all the million and one other things you do. Don't think people aren't appreciative of this.

However, two points on arguments you consistently hear from PS workers in these debates.

1. The percentage of pay cut you have already taken is absolutely immaterial to the macro situation in the country (although of course it matters to your own micro circumstances). It is no argument at all to say "I have already taken a 13% pay cut". It simply does not matter. Instead, what matters is the absolute amount you are remunerated. In that sense, the extent of previous pay cuts are only a measure of how inflated your salaries had become.

2. Most of you have no conception of the premium you have through assured tenure of employment. In itself, I would put that at no less than 10% of your salary (in other words, most workers would take a 10% pay cut in exchange for a job for life). You never, ever seem to factor this in, but the added quality of life benefits you get from never having to worry about unemployment are enormous. You MUST factor this into your arguments.

.........

In the Property forum on Ask About Money there is a thread from a 33 year old teacher asking for advice on something. His says his salary is €60,000. Anyone who looks at that figure and thinks it's ok is not thinking straight, or is incapable of putting aside vested interest and looking at it dispassioately. For an early-mid career teacher to be on that much money shows, in and of itself and without recourse to any other data or information, that our system is hopelessly broken. Here's that thread:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=125577

Clearly his tough personal circumstances are not relevant to my point.

macannrb · 11-01-2011 06:19PM

EF wrote: »

I expect your suggestions would lead to 1) default on personal debt/mortgages requiring more bank recapitalisation 2) anarchy 3) widespead industrial action 4) massive poverty 5) massive unemployment

To be fair, I agree by in large, but we are alread seeing defaults on debt and mortatgages and massive unemployment. 400k out of work atm is not to be snifted at either, and many are long term unemployeed.

As far as poverty is concerned, this is a real cause for concern, and there has been a lot more people on the streets over the last 2 years that I have noticed.

Widespread industrial action in the PS and anarchy from those on welfare well happen regardless if you if you cut their payments by 10% or 50%. The correction has to come at some point, so why not try to fix the country. Reform won't happen if the status quo is left as it is. There is a lot of waste in many sectors of society and even the IMF entering the country hasn't woken up many areas. OAPs in many cases are a prime example.

Gumbo · 11-01-2011 06:29PM

Treehouse72 wrote: »

1. The percentage of pay cut you have already taken is absolutely immaterial to the macro situation in the country (although of course it matters to your own micro circumstances). It is no argument at all to say "I have already taken a 13% pay cut". It simply does not matter. Instead, what matters is the absolute amount you are remunerated. In that sense, the extent of previous pay cuts are only a measure of how inflated your salaries had become.

PS pay bill has been and is still being reduced.
it reduced in 2009, 2010 and will reduce further in 2011.

swampgas · 11-01-2011 11:46PM

kceire wrote: »

PS pay bill has been and is still being reduced.
it reduced in 2009, 2010 and will reduce further in 2011.

Again - missing the point. It doesn't matter (in a macro sense) what percentage it is being reduced by, only what the actual value of that pay now is. Of course it does matter to the person being paid, as a reduction in income is difficult to manage, especially where there is a big mortgage to pay.

The point (again from a macro point of view) is that what you were paid before is irrelevant - it is what you are being paid now that matters. If that is too much (and that is what is being argued) then it needs to be reduced again, to a value that makes more sense given the size of the deficit.

Not nice for the person getting the pay cut, but that's the reality we seem to be in.

ardmacha · 12-01-2011 12:11AM

The national finances have gone down the drain, so the natural reaction would be to cut all areas until things get back to a sustainable level.

If a business was losing money, yet experiencing a high demand for its services, it would simply raise the price. People are queuing up to enter hospitals, universities etc, which suggests that the price charged for these services is too low.

Now you'll probably say that this analysis is simplistic or not appropriate, but no more so than the nonsense continually posted on this thread.

macannrb · 12-01-2011 09:47AM

ardmacha wrote: »

If a business was losing money, yet experiencing a high demand for its services, it would simply raise the price. People are queuing up to enter hospitals, universities etc, which suggests that the price charged for these services is too low.

This analysis is very adpt actually. However putting up the price means that many wont be able to afford it. Which is exactly the case here

The real crux of the problem is this, we want welfare, we want nice doctors, good teachers but we can't afford it. Its called effective demand.

I have heard, that this is part of the reason for the hike in VHI prices, and the others will follow suit as the HSE has hiked their prices for services however this is just word of mouth.

danbohan · 12-01-2011 11:00AM

ardmacha wrote: »

If a business was losing money, yet experiencing a high demand for its services, it would simply raise the price. People are queuing up to enter hospitals, universities etc, which suggests that the price charged for these services is too low.

Now you'll probably say that this analysis is simplistic or not appropriate, but no more so than the nonsense continually posted on this thread.

Now you'll probably say that this analysis is simplistic or not appropriate, but no more so than the nonsense continually posted on this thread

no , i think it quite clearly shows the mindset of a great majority of public sector workers in this country

Riskymove · 12-01-2011 11:16AM

swampgas wrote: »

The point (again from a macro point of view) is that what you were paid before is irrelevant - it is what you are being paid now that matters. If that is too much (and that is what is being argued) then it needs to be reduced again, to a value that makes more sense given the size of the deficit.

on a macro basis the pay bill continues to reduce as pointed out many times, most PS here have no problem with reducing expenditure as we see the need

the problem is certain people acting as if the ps pay bill was the be all and end all as far as closing the deficit...it is not....the ps pay bill is now around half of our income and the aim is to reduce it further to a sustainable level.

noodler · 12-01-2011 12:29PM

Riskymove wrote: »

the problem is certain people acting as if the ps pay bill was the be all and end all as far as closing the deficit...it is not....the ps pay bill is now around half of our income and the aim is to reduce it further to a sustainable level.

Would you ever not be so silly.

Of the €20bn adjustment so far since the recession began (and another €9bn to come) only €1bn has been taken from public sector pay in terms of pay cuts + whatever the pension levy raised in an attempt to stop private workers paying for the high public sector pensions bill.

macannrb · 12-01-2011 12:32PM

Riskymove wrote: »

on a macro basis the pay bill continues to reduce as pointed out many times, most PS here have no problem with reducing expenditure as we see the need

The need was a couple of years ago... Brian Lucey, economist in TCD, made the point in 2009 that we were heading to spiraling debt http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/oct/26/we-are-heading-back-into-deep-national-debt/

The national debt stands at 90bn, add the bailout, 85bn, add the amount put into the banks, 70bn at last count (not included in national debt). Now add up the interest on all that. Use the extorionate rate of 5.8% on the IMF deal or the 8.5% on the markets today for 10 year ie bonds.

Then you quickly see the extend of the interest bill building up. Actually its not far from the public sector bill

Riskymove wrote: »

the problem is certain people acting as if the ps pay bill was the be all and end all as far as closing the deficit...it is not....the ps pay bill is now around half of our income and the aim is to reduce it further to a sustainable level.

Please name such people? me, ive mentioned welfare time and time again. You also havent provide a link to your 4 year plan.

The aim is not to reduce ps pay to a % of tax revenue, its to first stop the national debt growing, and then reduce the national debt to a sustainable level. Public pay and pensions are a very very big part of expenditure and need to be cut as we can't afford it.

As others have pointed out, the mindset of ps workers has to change, the status quo has to change in all areas.

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 12:38PM

noodler wrote: »

Would you ever not be so silly.

only €1bn has been taken from public sector pay

PS pay and bill was
17.097Bn in 2008
16.471Bn in 2009
15.092Bn in 2010

and still decreasing........

i think your 1Bn figure is wrong......

dissed doc · 12-01-2011 12:50PM

Treehouse72 wrote: »

God, this debate is always so depressing. .

1. The percentage of pay cut you have already taken is absolutely immaterial to the macro situation in the country (although of course it matters to your own micro circumstances). It is no argument at all to say "I have already taken a 13% pay cut". It simply does not matter. Instead, what matters is the absolute amount you are remunerated. In that sense, the extent of previous pay cuts are only a measure of how inflated your salaries had become.

Every billion saved in paycuts is spent ten times over again by bailing out the banks, developers (NAMA) and international bondholders that have our political leaders by the balls.

2. Most of you have no conception of the premium you have through assured tenure of employment. In itself, I would put that at no less than 10% of your salary (in other words, most workers would take a 10% pay cut in exchange for a job for life). You never, ever seem to factor this in, but the added quality of life benefits you get from never having to worry about unemployment are enormous. You MUST factor this into your arguments.

I got 6 month contracts for my entire time in as a junior doctor. I had no assurance of employment, or even being paid as every six months I had to begin a battle again to get a salary correctly paid. Employment contracts were broken constantly such as withheld payments for work done (out of hours mandatory by the hospital roster, yet not paid correctly), not supplying employment contracts, breaching EWTD regularly.

Oh right, and no such thing as redundancy payments such as in the private sector.

I factored all these in when I left, and now get paid considerably more, with better professional quality of life, in the EU, than I was being paid in Ireland. Money has little to do with me ever returning to Ireland - it's more about the widepread insulting and ignorant attitude towards my profession, and that people feel entitled to belittle me and begrudge a professional existence.

Remember that you would need to stop every public servce, entirely, put everyone on the dole, and have no hospitals, schools or police for a decade or more to pay for the money the government has given to the private sector of banking, finance and construction sectors.

noodler · 12-01-2011 12:55PM

kceire wrote: »

PS pay and bill was
17.097Bn in 2008
16.471Bn in 2009
15.092Bn in 2010

and still decreasing........

i think your 1Bn figure is wrong......

Nope, Public Sector Pay has only been cut once if you don't include the the levy.

What you mean is the Public Sector Pay Bill which is also having to be reduced via reduced numbers.

Riskymove · 12-01-2011 12:59PM

noodler wrote: »

Would you ever not be so silly.

Of the €20bn adjustment so far since the recession began (and another €9bn to come) only €1bn has been taken from public sector pay in terms of pay cuts + whatever the pension levy raised in an attempt to stop private workers paying for the high public sector pensions bill.

so we are the ones 'being silly'?

on the macro level its the cost of the PS pay bill that is the key, and it has been reduced by far more than €1bn

the proportion of the reduction due to core pay cuts and what further measures are required are a seperate argument

Please name such people? me, ive mentioned welfare time and time again.

no, not you

given your number of posts perhaps you have not been around here long, I dont have the time to outline all such posts made on those lines, suffice to say if you read around a bit you'll see them

You also havent provide a link to your 4 year plan.

'the' four year plan, not my plan, the one this country is now undertaking

The aim is not to reduce ps pay to a % of tax revenue, its to first stop the national debt growing, and then reduce the national debt to a sustainable level. Public pay and pensions are a very very big part of expenditure and need to be cut as we can't afford it.

As others have pointed out, the mindset of ps workers has to change, the status quo has to change in all areas.

I am sorry but it is mindboggling how many times we have to say that we agree that expenditure needs to reduce further and the deficit needs to made sustainable....we know that ......yet we keep being told that we have the wrong mindset

it seems one cannot have different opinions about the manner in which we achieve this without being protrayed as having our heads in the sand or against reforms etc etc

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 01:12PM

noodler wrote: »

Nope, Public Sector Pay has only been cut once if you don't include the the levy.

What you mean is the Public Sector Pay Bill which is also having to be reduced via reduced numbers.

either you have the countries national debt in mind or its just a simple fact that YOU want to see peoples wages reduced.
End Result = PS pay and pension bill being reduced.

PS pay and bill was
17.097Bn in 2008
16.471Bn in 2009
15.092Bn in 2010

and still decreasing........

Treehouse72 · 12-01-2011 01:15PM

dissed doc wrote: »

it's more about the widepread insulting and ignorant attitude towards my profession, and that people feel entitled to belittle me and begrudge a professional existence.

Said in response to my post which read:

To the public sector folk, first, thank you for educating our kids, minding our parents in hospital, processing our dole cheques, administering our government and all the million and one other things you do. Don't think people aren't appreciative of this.

To have that thrown back in my face is very hard to stomach, and if I may say typical of the self-serving, intransigent and ungracious attitude of so many PS posters I see in these debates.

dissed doc wrote: »

Remember that you would need to stop every public servce, entirely, put everyone on the dole, and have no hospitals, schools or police for a decade or more to pay for the money the government has given to the private sector of banking, finance and construction sectors.

Yet again, intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. You juxtapose the phrase "private sector" with "banking, finance and construction" to try and imply that the private sector is synonymous with those industries. "Private sector" = the banks, and private sector workers in general are the beneficiaries of these bailouts with only the PS bearing the cost. This is an argument of such intellectual feebleness - like each of the points in your post, including the standard red herring about contract workers - that I'm not even going to dignify it with a response of substance.

Count Dooku · 12-01-2011 03:02PM

kceire wrote: »

either you have the countries national debt in mind or its just a simple fact that YOU want to see peoples wages reduced.
End Result = PS pay and pension bill being reduced.

PS pay and bill was
17.097Bn in 2008
16.471Bn in 2009
15.092Bn in 2010

and still decreasing........

according to department of finance
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/public%20expenditure/2010/REV2010.pdf
table 8
Exchequer pay and pensions
2006 16,752
2007 18,157
2008 19,339
2009 19,955
2010 18,819

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 03:13PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

according to department of finance
http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/public%20expenditure/2010/REV2010.pdf
table 8
Exchequer pay and pensions
2006 16,752
2007 18,157
2008 19,339
2009 19,955
2010 18,819

your document is dated Feb 2010.
my figures are from here - http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/payanal0510.pdf which although contains no exact date, but it does refer to the CPA and mentions that it contains data from the 31st Dec 2010, would lead me to believe that its more up to date.

Whole time equivalents as estimated at 31 December 2010)

PS pay and bill was
17.097Bn in 2008
16.471Bn in 2009
15.092Bn in 2010

(im no analylist (sp) so im open to correction on that)

noodler · 12-01-2011 03:15PM

kceire wrote: »

either you have the countries national debt in mind or its just a simple fact that YOU want to see peoples wages reduced.
End Result = PS pay and pension bill being reduced.

PS pay and bill was
17.097Bn in 2008
16.471Bn in 2009
15.092Bn in 2010

and still decreasing........

Eh...I have the public finances in mind of course. Then I have quality of public services in mind, fairness to those without jobs, etc etc.

The PS wage bill becoming a little bit more realistic is hardly ME wanting the wages redcued for the hell of it. I would, of course, prefer a reduction in pay (in a non=x% of everybody way) if it meant keeping PS numbers at a certain level.

noodler · 12-01-2011 03:15PM

kceire wrote: »

your document is dated Feb 2010.
my figures are from here - http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/reports/2010/payanal0510.pdf which although contains no exact date, but it does refer to the CPA and mentions that it contains data from the 31st Dec 2010, would lead me to believe that its more up to date.

(im no analylist (sp) so im open to correction on that)

I think one set of figures contain pay alone and another contains pay AND pensions, no?

Gumbo · 12-01-2011 03:17PM

noodler wrote: »

I think one set of figures contain pay alone and another contains pay AND pensions, no?

quite possible, but the title of my link is :

Analysis of Exchequer Pay and Pensions Bill

Count Dooku · 12-01-2011 03:35PM

kceire wrote: »

your document is dated Feb 2010.

I have newer one
http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Estimates%20Budget%202011.pdf

Table 4 EXCHEQUER PAY AND PENSIONS BILL - GROSS
2010 Estimate - 18,819,413
2010 Forecast Outturn 19,005,909

Riskymove · 12-01-2011 03:39PM

noodler wrote: »

I think one set of figures contain pay alone and another contains pay AND pensions, no?

but the discussion was about the reductions in pay of workers and the figures shown by Kceire clearly show the ongoing downward trend

and those figures do not include the extra net savings in expenditure due to pension levy, taxation and other measures

Riskymove · 12-01-2011 03:41PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

I have newer one
http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Estimates%20Budget%202011.pdf

Table 4 EXCHEQUER PAY AND PENSIONS BILL - GROSS
2010 Estimate - 18,819,413
2010 Forecast Outturn 19,005,909

thats the pre-budget estimates volume based on November figures, it does not reflect the measures implemented in the budget

noodler · 12-01-2011 03:55PM

Riskymove wrote: »

but the discussion was about the reductions in pay of workers and the figures shown by Kceire clearly show the ongoing downward trend

and those figures do not include the extra net savings in expenditure due to pension levy, taxation and other measures

So? Merely pointing out the difference.

Asking the public sector as a whole to front the bill for their pensions is not exactly too much to ask is it?

Riskymove wrote: »

thats the pre-budget estimates volume based on November figures, it does not reflect the measures implemented in the budget

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are confusing his link with the White Paper.

Count Dooku · 12-01-2011 03:56PM

Riskymove wrote: »

thats the pre-budget estimates

For Budget 2011

Riskymove · 12-01-2011 04:14PM

noodler wrote: »

So? Merely pointing out the difference.

and I merely pointed out that one set of figures was more relevant to what we were dicussing

Asking the public sector as a whole to front the bill for their pensions is not exactly too much to ask is it?

?

what has this got to do with our present discussion

you seem intent on having a different dig in in every response, I'd appreciate it if we could discuss the matter in hand without such asides

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are confusing his link with the White Paper.

no I know what the white paper is

the estimates for the Budget 2011 is not the final version based on end of year outturn and final allocations

the Revised Estimates Volume is

this is what Count Dooku linked to first, for 2010, the 2011 version will be available in due course

ParkRunner · 12-01-2011 04:23PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

I have newer one
http://www.budget.gov.ie/budgets/2011/Documents/Estimates%20Budget%202011.pdf

Table 4 EXCHEQUER PAY AND PENSIONS BILL - GROSS
2010 Estimate - 18,819,413
2010 Forecast Outturn 19,005,909

And the net figure shows:
2010 - 17,327,115
2011 estimates - 17,089,664 (-2.1%)

I expect these figures are even distorted with the amount of lump sum pension payments which will be made this year with the continuing exodus from the public sector

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

Comments