How much do you think I should get paid?

kippy · 16-05-2011 10:45PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Cheers, so that's the english version of what Mari2222 posted

I stand corrected so, here's another question. If they reduce the OAP but not public sector pay does that mean ye would have to make a larger pension contribution to make up the difference?

Of course it doesnt - havent you read the rest of the documentation???
Disgraceful isn't it?
In fairness pensioners are very well protected in this country - the public service pensioners whose pensions are linked to final salary never had their pensions reduced in line with cuts in those final salaries either.

Head The Wall · 17-05-2011 12:11AM

BornToKill wrote: »

€387 a week looks more like twice the dole to me than twice the minimum wage?

Here's another one comparing net pay, use gross pay like everyone else

There is no set minimum wage, there is a set hourly rate which is currently E7.65 and the OP is on E14 an hour.

ardmacha · 17-05-2011 01:19AM

the public service pensioners whose pensions are linked to final salary never had their pensions reduced in line with cuts in those final salaries either.

They did have a cut. Quite what, if any, the relationship was I don't know.

Idbatterim · 17-05-2011 01:21AM

I think E14 per hour, given the position and its benefits is over the top! my ex works for very little more than that, as womens wear manager of large fashion store here, for over 7 years! she has ridiculous hours, literally no break over christmas, xmas day off and thats it, ridiculous pressure, deadlines, on her feet all days etc! the argument of getting what you pay for here, definitely does not apply to the public service. Why can colossal amounts of these jobs not be outsourced? no job security, no ridiculous pension, no tax free lump sum pay off...

Boskowski · 17-05-2011 06:08AM

We will always find a private sector job that has more stress, more hours and less pay. Some private sector jobs are quite exploiting especially in retail.

Are we saying we should be looking for the ****tiest least paid somewhat comparable job anywhere in the country and then pay the equivalent PS guy 20% less?

Generally speaking I think PS wage structures are too top heavy and then certain parts of the PS are more equal than others like health & education. But lower PS grades aren't really out of line by much if any.

What makes the public service so costly is:

- it's tendency to transfer itself into an ever growing over(read: un)organised beaurocratic monster - nature of the beast, same everwhere.
- It's top heaviness, in some areas less in some areas ridiculous.
- And the workers rights, overprotection, proper procedures thing. I'd call myself a lefty and generally speaking I am all for the latter but in Eires PS things have gone the other way now where it's possible to non-perform, duck & dive, practically even obstruct the service you should be providing and your employer can't even give you a good kick up your arse.

What to do?
Public sector reform. Cull numbers by not replacing staff while introducing better organisation in order to keep workload the same - in other words increase efficiency.
Reduce top heaviness especially with regards to wage structures. Break into protected areas (should never have given nurses a degree in the fist place, why does a prison warden make more than a school principal in Germany? That kind of thing).
Stop union mollycoddling. Do away with ridiculous side-benefits, overtime scamming and regain ability to throw the book at someone who's taking the piss.

I'd say you could make very significant savings like that without turning it into a sh1t job.

Head The Wall · 17-05-2011 07:10AM

Boskowski wrote: »

Generally speaking I think PS wage structures are too top heavy and then certain parts of the PS are more equal than others like health & education. But lower PS grades aren't really out of line by much if any.

I'd say you could make very significant savings like that without turning it into a sh1t job.

Why don't you conveniently ignore the ESRI report showing the disparity in pay was at the lower end of the PS scale - 35%. It's from 2006 and although pay has been reduced in the ps increments continue.

Look the op has a menial job but it shouldn't be paying him OTT wages just so he doesn't feel bad about being a clerical officer

Amhran Nua · 17-05-2011 08:16AM

later10 wrote: »

What? PRSI isn't just about unemployment benefits, but illness benefit, maternity benefit, and health treatment along with a range of others. It doesn't count as a pension payment.

The PRSI an employee sees on their wage slip is usually going in large amount towards the state pension, the employer's contribution makes up the rest. That's why the self employed don't get the dole automatically if they run into hardship.

I find this thread a bit silly to be honest, in the context of the problems facing the country. The real question should be what percentage of public sector workers are on this level of pay, which can be readily answered by looking at median and average public sector pay. The phrase "large middle management rump" keeps coming up whenever I research reform.

Still, some great contributions so far, especially regarding inefficient work practices.

motherriley · 17-05-2011 09:12AM

Idbatterim wrote: »

I think E14 per hour, given the position and its benefits is over the top! my ex works for very little more than that, as womens wear manager of large fashion store here, for over 7 years! she has ridiculous hours, literally no break over christmas, xmas day off and thats it, ridiculous pressure, deadlines, on her feet all days etc! the argument of getting what you pay for here, definitely does not apply to the public service. Why can colossal amounts of these jobs not be outsourced? no job security, no ridiculous pension, no tax free lump sum pay off...

Is it an irish fashion store, it should like M&S to me. :pac:

sollar · 17-05-2011 10:10AM

Who set their wages as they are now? I'm sure they had a little more information to hand than a few anecdotes about someones neighbour, girlfriend, brother or friend down the road etc.

I'd imagine these people give it plenty of consideration and were not motivated by contempt or begrudgery of the PS to start with.

dan_d · 17-05-2011 10:32AM

Idbatterim wrote: »

I think E14 per hour, given the position and its benefits is over the top! my ex works for very little more than that, as womens wear manager of large fashion store here, for over 7 years! she has ridiculous hours, literally no break over christmas, xmas day off and thats it, ridiculous pressure, deadlines, on her feet all days etc! the argument of getting what you pay for here, definitely does not apply to the public service. Why can colossal amounts of these jobs not be outsourced? no job security, no ridiculous pension, no tax free lump sum pay off...

14eur an hour.Interesting.

Some perspective - on a building site, you have what are called labourers. These are guys who have no trade, no skill, nothing, they're just general workers and will do pretty much anything. Now, I've worked with many of them over the last few years, and the majority are great guys - will literally work at anything, even the most filthy jobs (and there's some fairly filthy jobs on a building site) and will do all hours of the day and night, as needed.

Their pay rate is 14eur an hour (to my knowledge.I've looked for a source but cannot find it...I know there's info out there on labour rates somewhere though). That's basic pay.Any further skills they may have - ie, a card to drive a forks, anything like that - usually gains them more money.If they have a trade (NOT an apprentice), it jumps further. The sky's the limit.

I don't normally calculate what I was on hourly on site, because honestly it's depressing, but a rough calc was 15eur an hour before tax.Less after a paycut. And the level of responsibility I carried compared to these guys was ridiculous. My name was on so many sign off sheets, I was responsible for so many subcontractors, I answered to at least 4 different bosses....

The point I'm trying to make is that our rates of pay are totally distorted at this stage. Mainly due to unions and the last Gov. But taking that rate of pay away from people is very difficult because they have had it so long that most have bought houses and raised families based on that pay continuing. The OP's pay is at the higher end of what I would have guessed it at. But it's not all that out of sync with certain private sector jobs.

Boskowski says it well. With the PS it goes waaaay beyond pay cuts. There is whole reform needed there. Honestly, they need to shut every dept completely for about 2 weeks, put a group of semi-intelligent people in a room every day for that 2 weeks and come up with the most efficient way possible to run a dept, then re-open it with the new system. The current method of Gov proposals vs union complaints vs Gov re-proposing vs unions still whining vs 6 months later, a few desks get moved around, is NOT working. It's just not.

sarumite · 17-05-2011 11:31AM

sollar wrote: »

Who set their wages as they are now? I'm sure they had a little more information to hand than a few anecdotes about someones neighbour, girlfriend, brother or friend down the road etc.

I'd imagine these people give it plenty of consideration and were not motivated by contempt or begrudgery of the PS to start with.

Damn right....my great grandad fought Hitler to give you the freedom to....oops, sorry....wrong meme :rolleyes:

I do like how now any questioning of the PS by tax payers is not only begrudgery but now alos contempt. :rolleyes:

Welease · 17-05-2011 11:46AM

sollar wrote: »

Who set their wages as they are now? I'm sure they had a little more information to hand than a few anecdotes about someones neighbour, girlfriend, brother or friend down the road etc.

I'd imagine these people give it plenty of consideration and were not motivated by contempt or begrudgery of the PS to start with.

The Public Service benchmarking committee..

Membership
Chairperson:
The Hon Mr Justice Quirke, Judge of the High Court
Members:
Mr Billy Attley (former General Secretary of SIPTU)
Mr John Dunne (Chairman, IDA, and former Director General of IBEC)
Mr Phil Flynn (consultant, former President of ICTU and former General Secretary of IMPACT)
Ms Maureen Lynott (Management Consultant)
Mr Paddy Mullarkey (former Secretary General, Department of Finance)
Mr Jim O’Leary (former Chief Economist, Davy Stockbrokers, currently lecturer, NUI Maynooth). Mr O'Leary resigned from the Benchmarking Body in April, 2002.

Public Servants, and Union heads.. a more impartial lot you could not find.... and of course anyone who says otherwise is just a begrudger... :rolleyes:

Of course the ESRI and Ronan Lyons were just begrudgers too...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11635058/Wage-Determination-in-the-Irish-Economy-Ruane-Lyons-QEC-2002

On the anecdotal evidence, that is very much what the PS Benchmarking body worked on.. The ignored all available data, and failed to produce any data of their own.. In fact, if you read the benchmarking report, you will note it is devoid of any such salary data which one would expect to be produced.. It's is why subsequent reports by the ESRI found a premium being paid to PS workers.. with supporting data..

Geuze · 17-05-2011 02:17PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

I stand corrected so, here's another question. If they reduce the OAP but not public sector pay does that mean ye would have to make a larger pension contribution to make up the difference?

Yes, correct.

Assuming the CSP was cut, and assuming your gross wage is unchanged, the public servant would have to pay more pension conts.

Assuming you have 40 yrs superannuation, you would get a pension of 50% of wages, made up of the smaller CSP and the slightly larger work pension.

kippy · 17-05-2011 02:52PM

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, correct.

Assuming the CSP was cut, and assuming your gross wage is unchanged, the public servant would have to pay more pension conts.

Assuming you have 40 yrs superannuation, you would get a pension of 50% of wages, made up of the smaller CSP and the slightly larger work pension.

Ah now

wait there, I hate to see BS coming from any side.
The public servant wouldnt actually pay any MORE money towards their pension should the COAP come down - the figures would remain the same.
Just as they havent had a reduction in pension costs during the past 10 years as pensions went up.

Welease · 17-05-2011 03:11PM

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, correct.

Assuming the CSP was cut, and assuming your gross wage is unchanged, the public servant would have to pay more pension conts.

Assuming you have 40 yrs superannuation, you would get a pension of 50% of wages, made up of the smaller CSP and the slightly larger work pension.

That is simple not true..

The pension contributions are a set % of salary, and in no way reflect the cost of the pension.. If the COAP was cut to by 1K per year tomorrow a PS worker would not be requested (nor would I with my private DB pension either) to pay the difference in extra contributions.. Just as you were not refunded any contributions when the COAP was increased in past years..

Icepick · 17-05-2011 09:46PM

21k gross + health insurance for 37 hours

Geuze · 17-05-2011 11:30PM

Welease wrote: »

That is simple not true..

The pension contributions are a set % of salary, and in no way reflect the cost of the pension.. If the COAP was cut to by 1K per year tomorrow a PS worker would not be requested (nor would I with my private DB pension either) to pay the difference in extra contributions.. Just as you were not refunded any contributions when the COAP was increased in past years..

Public service pension conts are based on the 6.5%, yes.

But the formula is as follows:

1.5% of gross salary for the lump-sum at retirement
5% of adjusted salary for the pension.

Adjusted salary = salary less 2* CSP

Say you earn 50k gross. You pay 1.5% for the lump-sum, simple.

But you pay 5% of (50,000 less 2*12,000 CSP)

That's 5% of 26k.

(It may actually be a bit more complex)

So if the CSP is cut, all public servant would have to pay more pension conts, as their work pension would have to increase to make up for the lower CSP.

Geuze · 17-05-2011 11:33PM

See Q4 in this FAQ, but note that this is about civil service pensions,which are similar, but not the same as public service pensions:

http://www.cspensions.gov.ie/faq2.pdf

Geuze · 17-05-2011 11:37PM

Here is a quote from the ASTI website, about thepublic service pension scheme:

4. What contributions do I pay for these benefits?

Each member of the Scheme must pay a contribution for the duration of his or her membership of the Scheme. The contribution comprises 5% of remuneration in the case of a member paying modified (or D rate) PRSI.

Where a member is paying full (or A rate) PRSI and is in wholetime service, he or she will pay 3.5% of net remuneration plus 1.5% of remuneration.
Remuneration in any year means the total of basic salary plus pensionable allowances plus supervision and substitution payments payable in that year. Net remuneration means the difference between remuneration and twice the maximum personal rate of State Pension (Contributory). The State Pension (Contributory) is formerly known as the Old Age Contributory Pension.

a

Geuze · 17-05-2011 11:39PM

Welease wrote: »

That is simple not true..

The pension contributions are a set % of salary, and in no way reflect the cost of the pension.. If the COAP was cut to by 1K per year tomorrow a PS worker would not be requested (nor would I with my private DB pension either) to pay the difference in extra contributions.. Just as you were not refunded any contributions when the COAP was increased in past years..

For pre-95 staff, they would continue to pay 6.5% of wages.

But post-95 staff would have to pay more pension conts, to make up for the lower CSP, leaving the final pension the same.

No, PS were not refunded any conts when the CSP increased. But bear in mind that wages rose each year, so the formula was re-calculated each year.

Head The Wall · 18-05-2011 01:25PM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The PRSI an employee sees on their wage slip is usually going in large amount towards the state pension, the employer's contribution makes up the rest. That's why the self employed don't get the dole automatically if they run into hardship.

Have you a source for that statement because it sounds like you're just guessing to me

OMD · 18-05-2011 02:07PM

BrianD3 wrote: »

I see the OP says that he has a "brilliant" pension and others are unsurprisingly agreeing with this as it suits the PS fatcat stereotype.

The pension for a civil service CO is far from brilliant. If the highest point of the scale is ~35k that's a pension of 17.5k and a lump sum of 52.5k. After 40 years service paying
1) PRSI
2) superannuation + widows and orphans
3) pension levy.

The CO scale is 12 increments + two long service increments so if he stays at this grade he'll receive no increment for at least 20 years before retiring. As a result, his average salary for his service will be relatively close to the top of the scale.

Now, compare that to a private sector worker on similar wages or lower getting the COAP. How many years of PRSI do they need to get a full COAP. According to this page it's 520 weeks or 10 years.

They pay no superannuation and no pension levy. If any pension is a golden one, it's this. A nice handy 12k per year and people have the nerve to wail about "x number of private sector workers have no pension"

What you are saying this person will get a pension of only €5,500 a year (17.5k - 12K COAP) and a lump sum of €52,500 tax free lump sum. So how much would the private sector worker have to have in their pension fund to finance such a pension? Annuities can vary a lot depending on age, sex ect but about6% a year would be reasonable. So a private sector employee would need a pension fund of about €140,000-150,000. What % superannuation do you think they would have to pay to build up a pension fund of this value?

Godge · 18-05-2011 09:48PM

OMD wrote: »

What you are saying this person will get a pension of only €5,500 a year (17.5k - 12K COAP) and a lump sum of €52,500 tax free lump sum. So how much would the private sector worker have to have in their pension fund to finance such a pension? Annuities can vary a lot depending on age, sex ect but about6% a year would be reasonable. So a private sector employee would need a pension fund of about €140,000-150,000. What % superannuation do you think they would have to pay to build up a pension fund of this value?

Difficult to calculate as the pension would be invested and gain a return on the investment. Against that, there is the fact that investments can go down and inflation can also turn a nominal return into a real loss.

However, even if you were to assume that there was no growth in the pension fund and you contributed for forty years 145,000/40 = 3625 per year. On a 32,500 salary (the one you are using for the public servant), that implies a contribution of 11.15%. Assume the employer is half decent and pays 5%, the private sector employee needs to contribute 6.15%.

Now how does that compare to the contributions made by the public servant and the pension ley paid?

OMD · 18-05-2011 10:10PM

Godge wrote: »

Difficult to calculate as the pension would be invested and gain a return on the investment. Against that, there is the fact that investments can go down and inflation can also turn a nominal return into a real loss.

However, even if you were to assume that there was no growth in the pension fund and you contributed for forty years 145,000/40 = 3625 per year. On a 32,500 salary (the one you are using for the public servant), that implies a contribution of 11.15%. Assume the employer is half decent and pays 5%, the private sector employee needs to contribute 6.15%.

Now how does that compare to the contributions made by the public servant and the pension ley paid?

But the average salary of a civil servant between 1971 and 2011 wasn't anywhere near €32,500.

BrianD3 · 18-05-2011 11:02PM

OMD wrote: »

But the average salary of a civil servant between 1971 and 2011 wasn't anywhere near €32,500.

And what was the average salary of a private sector clerical officer equivalent between 1971 and 2011. Or possibly 1971 and 1981 because as I posted earlier, they only seem to need 10 years of PRSI contributions for a full COAP.

Their average salary was low. As a result their PRSI contributions was low.

Yet now in 2011, they're entitled to an 11.9k pension. Their pension could be substantially more than the salary they earned when they were working.

PRSI is social insurance and not soley for pensions. Someone who draws the COAP may already have claimed jobseekers benefit, dental and optical benefit etc. meaning that in effect they've contributed even less to the cost of their COAP.

In the example used - public servant with 17.5k pension (11.9k of which is the COAP) and 52.5k lump sum, if they live 20 years, then that's 403k of which 238k is the COAP.

Then consider public servants and public service pensioners are in a minority compared to their private sector counterparts, I think public servants make up approx 20% of the working/retired population.

So which sector is the problem here:

The "fatcat" public sector clerical officer
403k pension that they've been contributing PRSI and superann etc. to for 40 years
1/5 of the population.

The "I have no pension" private sector clerical officer
238k pension that they contributed just PRSI to for a minimum of 10 years
4/5 of the population

blue2school · 19-05-2011 12:45AM

Low paid is going out to do a honest weeks work & not being much better off than on the dole. During the downturn i've heard a lot of opinions from a variety of people regarding salaries in the civil service,to set the record straight regarding clerial officer with three & a half years experience the salary is 400 (after tax). So after travel & lunch expenses you would probably be slightly better off than on the dole (thats low paid). Anybody thinking of joining please keep in mind your salary is slightly above every thershold for state entitlements such as (Medical card, Rent allowance etc).

I believed when i started along with the 30 others that if you put in the gaff & do a decent job you could progress up the ladder. Its actually the opposite in reality, three & a half years on i'm on slighly less than i started. After attending college & currently 31 years of age to be expected to do a days work & live on that salary is nothing short of a joke.

I thank the banks for one thing, although charging an exorbitant rate of interest without my credit card i'd be rightly screwed. Debt forgiveness please Enda!

P.S i broke my violin!

sollar · 19-05-2011 09:49AM

blue2school wrote: »

Low paid is going out to do a honest weeks work & not being much better off than on the dole. During the downturn i've heard a lot of opinions from a variety of people regarding salaries in the civil service,to set the record straight regarding clerial officer with three & a half years experience the salary is 400 (after tax). So after travel & lunch expenses you would probably be slightly better off than on the dole (thats low paid).

That is the long and the short of it. If your doing a weeks work and when all is said and done your less than €100 better off than if you were on the dole then your low paid (for this expensive country anyway). This is why i believe the government won't cut low paid ps workers by much (if at all) in the coming years. Unless they find a way to lower the cost of living here.

Jaysoose · 19-05-2011 11:30AM

blue2school wrote: »

Low paid is going out to do a honest weeks work & not being much better off than on the dole. During the downturn i've heard a lot of opinions from a variety of people regarding salaries in the civil service,to set the record straight regarding clerial officer with three & a half years experience the salary is 400 (after tax). So after travel & lunch expenses you would probably be slightly better off than on the dole (thats low paid). Anybody thinking of joining please keep in mind your salary is slightly above every thershold for state entitlements such as (Medical card, Rent allowance etc).

I believed when i started along with the 30 others that if you put in the gaff & do a decent job you could progress up the ladder. Its actually the opposite in reality, three & a half years on i'm on slighly less than i started. After attending college & currently 31 years of age to be expected to do a days work & live on that salary is nothing short of a joke.

I thank the banks for one thing, although charging an exorbitant rate of interest without my credit card i'd be rightly screwed. Debt forgiveness please Enda!

P.S i broke my violin!

Again we have public servants working out things based on net pay to portray themselves as low paid, lets take for example the travel expenses you would be elegible for a Tax saver ticket through work which is deducted from your GROSS wage to avail of the tax benefits which would save you a lot on travel expenses.

And the lunch expenses are another cop-out is there something wrong with making your own and bringing it in to work to save money.

You knew the salary when you joined so to complain about it after the event when you could be saving money quite easily then giving it the poor me is a joke.

Head The Wall · 19-05-2011 11:33AM

BrianD3 wrote: »

The "I have no pension" private sector clerical officer
238k pension that they contributed just PRSI to for a minimum of 10 years

Again why don't you blindly ignore the fact that most people pay PRSI their whole lives. It's no different to paying stamps for two years and being able to claim the dole indefinitely.

ardmacha · 19-05-2011 12:00PM

While the points about after tax salary are relevant, I think it is fair comment for a person to point out that they work for not a huge amount more than someone receives for doing nothing at all.

How much do you think I should get paid?

Comments