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

RichardAnd · 21-01-2011 11:46AM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ok john i will give you my personal stats then!

My maternal grandmother died at 66, my maternal grandfather at 51.
My father at 49.

My paternal grandfather at 73 and my paternal grandmother at 71.

See your stats and my stats are irrelevant john but my stats would bring the average well down.

The age of retirement is now 65 and i believe is to be upped to 67 for public servants (i could be wrong).
It is very unlikely i will ever be able to claim half my working life in pension sums upon retirement on a full public service pension. My pension will also be greatly reduced in terms of the payment your Grandfather received.

So from my position it seems you want to punish me becasue your grandfather had a long life!

Where on earth did you get the notion I want to punish you? Was I uncouth in my post or something

Also, the retirement age of 65 only applied to more recent entrants into the PS. As I said, the "old guard" will still retire at 60.

fliball123 · 21-01-2011 11:56AM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Ok john i will give you my personal stats then!

My maternal grandmother died at 66, my maternal grandfather at 51.
My father at 49.

My paternal grandfather at 73 and my paternal grandmother at 71.

See your stats and my stats are irrelevant john but my stats would bring the average well down.

The age of retirement is now 65 and i believe is to be upped to 67 for public servants (i could be wrong).
It is very unlikely i will ever be able to claim half my working life in pension sums upon retirement on a full public service pension. My pension will also be greatly reduced in terms of the payment your Grandfather received.

So from my position it seems you want to punish me becasue your grandfather had a long life!

its 68 now I think?

noodler · 21-01-2011 12:08PM

@Kcerie or anyone else.

Where did you get the figures for the PS wage bill (excl pensions?)

Could i get a link?

ParkRunner · 21-01-2011 12:29PM

noodler wrote: »

@Kcerie or anyone else.

Where did you get the figures for the PS wage bill (excl pensions?)

Could i get a link?

I presume you mean this

The 2011 net figures will be interesting to see to gauge what impact the Incentivised Early Retirement Scheme, recruitment embargo, cut in pensions and changes to personal taxation have had.

noodler · 21-01-2011 12:57PM

Ok so the fall from 17 to 15 in the pay billalone between 2008 and 2010 appears to be net then, no gross figures for the pay bill alone? (excl pensions)??

noodler · 21-01-2011 01:06PM

table V on page 13 seems to be what kcerie is quoting (the fall from 15bn to 17bn since 2008) but isn`t this just for the sectors shown?

I mean table xiii on page 19 shows:

- the gross pay bill in 2008 as 19.35bn falling to 18.8bn in 2010

-the net pay bill in 2008 as 18.75bn and falling to 17.327bn in 2010

So do we have an error here or what? someone elses opinion would be appreicated.

ParkRunner · 21-01-2011 02:29PM

noodler wrote: »

table V on page 13 seems to be what kcerie is quoting (the fall from 15bn to 17bn since 2008) but isn`t this just for the sectors shown?

I mean table xiii on page 19 shows:

- the gross pay bill in 2008 as 19.35bn falling to 18.8bn in 2010

-the net pay bill in 2008 as 18.75bn and falling to 17.327bn in 2010

So do we have an error here or what? someone elses opinion would be appreicated.

The different figures relate to the cost of paybill alone v the cost of pay + pensions.

Another interesting table I found here which seems to include the health sector from 2008 shows that a quarter of public servant earn less than 20k and over half earn less than 40k gross. And these figures are before any of the paycuts were imposed! Note: the figures are not entirely accurate by Lenihan's own admissions. Still it is some indication.

macannrb · 21-01-2011 02:37PM

EF wrote: »

The different figures relate to the cost of paybill alone v the cost of pay + pensions.

Another interesting table I found here which seems to include the health sector from 2008 shows that a quarter of public servant earn less than 20k and over half earn less than 40k gross. And these figures are before any of the paycuts were imposed! Note: the figures are not entirely accurate by Lenihan's own admissions. Still it is some indication.

thats a very interesting table, thank you for finding this

fliball123 · 21-01-2011 02:50PM

macannrb wrote: »

thats a very interesting table, thank you for finding this

Is this before other benefits like Overtime, Shift allowences, the 38 odd different allowences the guards get???

Also what % are not working full weeks...and the fact left out here is that 200k odd earning up over 50k and then pensions thats fcuking mad . I was under the illusion that the p.s was only 300k or so

macannrb · 21-01-2011 03:04PM

It looks like the median wage is about 3500 and the average wage is about 41k

If you were to reduce wages on a scaled basis, for example 10% on the first 40k, this would lead to a saving of 1260m, 20% of wages between 40-90k, this would lead to a saving of about 820m and a 50% cut to anything over 90k would lead to a saving of 540m

This would lead to a total saving of only 2.5 bn

Even trying to get savings through a method like this, as tough as it would be, over the 4 year plan, probably more savings would need to be achieved so I would assume that job cuts would need to be made. This is something I would have though could be avoided, but I dont think it's possible to avoid looking at the numbers.

noodler · 21-01-2011 03:09PM

EF wrote: »

The different figures relate to the cost of paybill alone v the cost of pay + pensions.

Another interesting table I found here which seems to include the health sector from 2008 shows that a quarter of public servant earn less than 20k and over half earn less than 40k gross. And these figures are before any of the paycuts were imposed! Note: the figures are not entirely accurate by Lenihan's own admissions. Still it is some indication.

oh it is, cheers.

so is the reduction from 15 to 17 previously posted a net or gross figure. theres doesnt appear to be a neat little table for the pay bill alone (only pay AND pensions)

Count Dooku · 21-01-2011 03:29PM

EF wrote: »

The different figures relate to the cost of paybill alone v the cost of pay + pensions.

Another interesting table I found here which seems to include the health sector from 2008 shows that a quarter of public servant earn less than 20k and over half earn less than 40k gross. And these figures are before any of the paycuts were imposed! Note: the figures are not entirely accurate by Lenihan's own admissions. Still it is some indication.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2009-02-17.955.0

Information is not readily available in the precise format sought by the Deputy. However, the following table provides estimates of the numbers of public servants in various salary bands of €5,000. The recently announced public service pension related deduction will apply to all earnings, not just salary, and will also include employees of the local authorities who are not included within the public service pay and pensions bill and are not included in the following figures. The numbers at different salary bands vary from time to time depending on matters such as incremental salary movement, retirements etc. Furthermore, in the case of some groups additional earnings may arise from overtime, allowances and premium payments.
Salary Range Est. Nos in range
€
up to 25,000 22,000
25,000-30,000 33,000
30,000-35,000 38,000
35,000-40,000 36,000
40,000-45,000 33,000
45,000-50,000 36,000
50,000-55,000 30,000
55,000-60,000 27,000
60,000-65,000 9,000
65,000-70,000 5,000
70,000-75,000 3,000
75,000-80,000 6,000
80,000-85,000 4,000
85,000-90,000 3,000
90,000-95,000 3,000
95,000-100,000 3,000
greater than 100,000 9,000
Total 300,000

P. Breathnach · 21-01-2011 03:37PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Is this before other benefits like Overtime, Shift allowences, the 38 odd different allowences the guards get???

If you read the text, the table refers to taxable income. That includes overtime and shift allowances, and it also includes some other allowances (e.g. the Gaeltacht allowance that some guards and teachers get). Further, it includes income not derived from the public purse -- I immediately think of the private practice earnings of medical consultants; other might think of all the rental income that guards and teachers supposedly receive..

Also what % are not working full weeks...and the fact left out here is that 200k odd earning up over 50k and then pensions thats fcuking mad . I was under the illusion that the p.s was only 300k or so

It looks to be a reasonable inference that most of those receiving less than €30k p.a. are not working full-time, and probably most over €30k p.a. probably are.

fliball123 · 21-01-2011 03:39PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you read the text, the table refers to taxable income. That includes overtime and shift allowances, and it also includes some other allowances (e.g. the Gaeltacht allowance that some guards and teachers get). Further, it includes income not derived from the public purse -- I immediately think of the private practice earnings of medical consultants; other might think of all the rental income that guards and teachers supposedly receive..

It looks to be a reasonable inference that most of those receiving less than €30k p.a. are not working full-time, and probably most over €30k p.a. probably are.

ahh k cool there seems to be a different take from some other poster here that only 300k p.s

MagicSean · 21-01-2011 03:54PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Is this before other benefits like Overtime, Shift allowences, the 38 odd different allowences the guards get???

Also what % are not working full weeks...and the fact left out here is that 200k odd earning up over 50k and then pensions thats fcuking mad . I was under the illusion that the p.s was only 300k or so

No Garda gets 38 allowances. Many of the allowances are mutually exclusive.

fliball123 · 21-01-2011 03:58PM

k_mac wrote: »

No Garda gets 38 allowances. Many of the allowances are mutually exclusive.

But there are 38 different allowances available to them?

MagicSean · 21-01-2011 04:32PM

fliball123 wrote: »

But there are 38 different allowances available to them?

Most likely. But they all require something extra of the person who gets them.

fliball123 · 21-01-2011 05:31PM

k_mac wrote: »

Most likely. But they all require something extra of the person who gets them.

Like what boot allowence...or the best I ever heard is the "I am on holiday so I cannot avail of overtime allowence" what extra are they doing for that one?

MagicSean · 21-01-2011 06:28PM

fliball123 wrote: »

Like what boot allowence...or the best I ever heard is the "I am on holiday so I cannot avail of overtime allowence" what extra are they doing for that one?

It doesn't exist. Urban myth. A Garda who is temporarily reassigned to 9-5 duty or who is injured on duty can claim for night allowances he has missed through no fault of his own.

The boot allowance is for maintaining the foot wear. It is about enough to buy a tin of good shoe polish and a brush or buffer once a month.

kaiser sauze · 22-01-2011 06:33AM

kceire wrote: »

I have, from 2 actually. Both private sector institutions.
And I'd still opt out of my PS pension tomorrow if I had the choice.

And I told you before that those advisers were crap and you needed to try and get a better one.

ardmacha wrote: »

There isn't a "current" pension liability of €108 billion. These pensions are payable up to 50 years in the future and can be paid from the economy of the future.

It is like saying that there is a €100 billion liability for road maintenance in the next 100 years when in fact roads will be maintained each year from the economy of that year.

There is a genuine issue about increased lifespan and pensions, which is being addressed by an increased retirement age and more may need to be done in this regard. But all of this talk of imaginary funds with imaginary deficits is just timewasting nonsense.

It is current, from an accounting perspective.

To not account for this liability would be foolish and would mean that the DoF would have a fundamental misunderstanding of the country's finances moving forward.

kceire wrote: »

The state pension is 12k odd so

Your forgetting that I will only need approx 7k per year to make 50% of final salary.

So it's 91,320 / 7000 = 13 years of 50% pension entitlements.
And that's using a simple bank account, not requiring fund management or asset management or any of that PRSA/pension fund crap, just a simple bank account lodgement.

kceire wrote: »

I totally agree they may be alot more comes than I make them out to be but my PS pension is only 7k per year. Whether I get a promotion or not over the next 30 years, I don't know but I'm bottom of the list, last one in so I am.

If you removed PS pensions altogether I am still entitled to my state pension of 12k so that leaves me free to save my pension contributions myself and use then in retirement or as I see fit.

I could get a similar return for my PS entitlements by either saving the money or opening a PRSA or similar private sector pension fund.
My PRSA from my previous job is doing farther well tbh, think it's up approx 15% on what I paid in and I opened that in 2002. Obviously stopped paying it now as I have my PS pension to contribute to.

For the lov...

Listen up, we are not picking on you, but you continually quoting figures and using them to back up your situation and stance is beginning to make you look either very stupid, grossly misinformed or as a paid union shill really is doing you no favours.

A private sector scheme would have a very tough time matching up to your PS one, the contributions that the private sector worker would have to make would be unaffordable unless that person had no other significant financial commitments.

You will not be earning the same money you are now at retirement, do not insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.

Welease wrote: »

/sigh... and you are still trying to quote your current salary as your pensionable salary.. it is not.. so again, you either do not understand pensions, or you are deliberately posting false figures...

+1

Welease wrote: »

So all your (many) posts about the PS pensions, are based on the assumption of 0 pay increases for the next 38 years....

Welease wrote: »

This is getting boring so lets cuts to the chase..

The figures you post on here don't even stand up to the quickest of checks..

The simple facts are..

Your pension calculations are
- Based on your current salary which is incorrect as PS pension is based on final salary which is 30+ years away..
- Based on 40 years service, which you now say you cant attain
- Based on the assumption that for the next 38 years the Public Sector gets no pay increases, and you get no personal increments through promotions etc., which is utter ..........

So why continue to post those figures on numerous threads?
They are at best factually incorrect, and at worst a calculated distortion of the truth...

Did you notice how kceire, or anyone else, has not admitted to this reality?

Head The Wall · 22-01-2011 10:41AM

EF wrote: »

The different figures relate to the cost of paybill alone v the cost of pay + pensions.

Another interesting table I found here which seems to include the health sector from 2008 shows that a quarter of public servant earn less than 20k and over half earn less than 40k gross. And these figures are before any of the paycuts were imposed! Note: the figures are not entirely accurate by Lenihan's own admissions. Still it is some indication.

So we have two sets of employee numbers and wages which have a difference of 130,000 staff. These figures are also taken from Revenue figures. Is it any wonder that the finances are in the state they are in when they are not even aware of how many people work for them and what they are earning. Wage costs are one of the largest costs for any employer and it's not surprising really that they can't even tally that up properly.

k_mac wrote: »

It doesn't exist. Urban myth. A Garda who is temporarily reassigned to 9-5 duty or who is injured on duty can claim for night allowances he has missed through no fault of his own.

So the allowance is treated as salary. I see this practice is still going on in the PS, the same as people getting increments when there is a pay freeze on. :mad:

ParkRunner · 22-01-2011 11:22AM

Head The Wall wrote: »

So we have two sets of employee numbers and wages which have a difference of 130,000 staff. These figures are also taken from Revenue figures. Is it any wonder that the finances are in the state they are in when they are not even aware of how many people work for them and what they are earning. Wage costs are one of the largest costs for any employer and it's not surprising really that they can't even tally that up properly.

Each study outlines what they define as being employed in the public sector is. Some studies include semi-state employees and health sector employees as public servants and others don't. The Revenue figures seem to be including everyone possibly connected to the public sector from what I can see.

Head The Wall wrote: »

So the allowance is treated as salary. I see this practice is still going on in the PS, the same as people getting increments when there is a pay freeze on. :mad:

PMDS needs to be improved, I don't think anyone can deny that. Whether the top senior civil servants are going to reform it under Croke Park or not reamins to be seen. Just like pension contributions however it is pretty much out of civil servants hands what happens about this.

MagicSean · 22-01-2011 02:54PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

So we have two sets of employee numbers and wages which have a difference of 130,000 staff. These figures are also taken from Revenue figures. Is it any wonder that the finances are in the state they are in when they are not even aware of how many people work for them and what they are earning. Wage costs are one of the largest costs for any employer and it's not surprising really that they can't even tally that up properly.

So the allowance is treated as salary. I see this practice is still going on in the PS, the same as people getting increments when there is a pay freeze on. :mad:

No if it was a salary you would get it on sick leave and annual leave. It is given because you have been rostered for duty and have made yourself available for it but through no fault of your own the roster has been changed at short notice. Many Gardaí don't even claim it. It's just something that was hyped up by people who knew nothing about what they were reporting.

doleman2010 · 22-01-2011 04:27PM

AVERAGE PAY:
Secondary schools were open for 155 days on average in 2010, thats 31 weeks exactly. Average working week for a secondary teacher is 22 hours.

That's an average of 682hours worked in 2010.

Now here's the shocker the average salary for secondary teachers is €48,200(level 13).

48,200/682=70.67

Average Hourly Pay For Secondary Teachers= €70.67

I can't see how anybody can justify an hourly wage over 70 euros. If you put in the highest point on the teachers salary scale you get €94 per hour.:eek: And starting off you get €40 per hour, that is the lowest hourly rate earned by any secondary teacher:rolleyes:.

doc_17 · 22-01-2011 09:02PM

doleman2010 wrote: »

AVERAGE PAY:
Secondary schools were open for 155 days on average in 2010, thats 31 weeks exactly. Average working week for a secondary teacher is 22 hours.

That's an average of 682hours worked in 2010.

Now here's the shocker the average salary for secondary teachers is €48,200(level 13).

48,200/682=70.67

Average Hourly Pay For Secondary Teachers= €70.67

I can't see how anybody can justify an hourly wage over 70 euros. If you put in the highest point on the teachers salary scale you get €94 per hour.:eek: And starting off you get €40 per hour, that is the lowest hourly rate earned by any secondary teacher:rolleyes:.

Ha! What a ridiculous post.......Totally taking everything out of context!

martian1980 · 23-01-2011 09:16PM

doleman2010 wrote: »

AVERAGE PAY:
Secondary schools were open for 155 days on average in 2010, thats 31 weeks exactly. Average working week for a secondary teacher is 22 hours.

That's an average of 682hours worked in 2010.

Now here's the shocker the average salary for secondary teachers is €48,200(level 13).

48,200/682=70.67

Average Hourly Pay For Secondary Teachers= €70.67

I can't see how anybody can justify an hourly wage over 70 euros. If you put in the highest point on the teachers salary scale you get €94 per hour.:eek: And starting off you get €40 per hour, that is the lowest hourly rate earned by any secondary teacher:rolleyes:.

So one thread on this "research" wasn't enough for you?

Treehouse72 · 23-01-2011 11:39PM

There's a post elsewhere on this site - I won't post the link because it's not fair to drag another poster into this argument, but if you search the forums I visit and dig a bit you'll find it - from a 24 year old teacher on €40,000 pa + €3k Summer nixers making €43,000 pa in total. Just out of college, one assumes.

Anyone else know any 24 year olds earning that? It's probably 20% above a median national wage, and almost certainly higher than a median Dublin wage. At 24.

Defend that if you like. Anyone without prejudice should see it as an absurdity.

doc_17 · 24-01-2011 07:19PM

Sure it pays a decent wage. But you mist also consider that the person has an honour degree and a postgrad qualification. Does the average person have that? I get why people don't like teachers but we're not in the hole we're in because of teachers.

thebman · 24-01-2011 09:30PM

doc_17 wrote: »

Sure it pays a decent wage. But you mist also consider that the person has an honour degree and a postgrad qualification. Does the average person have that? I get why people don't like teachers but we're not in the hole we're in because of teachers.

Nobody hate teachers, they hate 20 billion deficits. Stop trying to act like people are just out to get teachers that is ridiculous.

Many people have postgrads and don't start on that much.

fly_agaric · 24-01-2011 09:34PM

Treehouse72 wrote: »

Anyone else know any 24 year olds earning that? It's probably 20% above a median national wage, and almost certainly higher than a median Dublin wage. At 24.

No it (43k per year) is about double the median wage [edit - maybe not, was thinking median income!].

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

Comments