Survey reveals a 44% pay gap between public and private sector

martian1980 · 01-08-2011 02:59PM

I can't understand that sentence. Could you rephrase it?

Nijmegen · 01-08-2011 03:02PM

martian1980 wrote: »

so, if there were PS redundancies and people ended up on the dole, would you be adding back the dole payments that the former public servants were getting afterwards when calculating the saving?

The fact is, you can never reduce the cost of an individual to €0. But you can reduce it from €50,000 today.

Even the most remarkable estimates of social welfare provision, when dole, mortgage relief, etc, is considered, you'd be finding it tough to clear €50k in cost.

Of course, the other side of the argument is that SW rates themselves need to come down (and I'd agree with PS workers that this is hardly discussed enough.)

martian1980 · 01-08-2011 03:09PM

rough calculation: lets say a public servant's average salary is 50k. The cost to the exchequer is just shy of 32k (www.taxcalc.eu). on social welfare, they'd get about 8k a year? add in rent allowance (another 7k a yearish? I'm really not sure) and a medical card and the other bits and peices and I'm sure it would end up at around 17k/year.
That would mean getting rid of them would result in a saving of about 15k/year. You'd have to give them a reduncancy payment too, so to make the kind of savings you guys want, you'd have to some real butchering to the public service.

There doesn't seem to be any sign of any measures like these coming in, though. You can huff and puff and talk about the IMF like you're in a school playground and Mr. Chopra's your big brother, but there's no indication of them considering moves like these.

Ah well, at least this discussion is a cheap way of passing a wet bank holiday monday.

Nijmegen · 01-08-2011 03:25PM

martian1980 wrote: »

rough calculation: lets say a public servant's average salary is 50k. The cost to the exchequer is just shy of 32k (www.taxcalc.eu). on social welfare, they'd get about 8k a year? add in rent allowance (another 7k a yearish? I'm really not sure) and a medical card and the other bits and peices and I'm sure it would end up at around 17k/year.
That would mean getting rid of them would result in a saving of about 15k/year. You'd have to give them a reduncancy payment too, so to make the kind of savings you guys want, you'd have to some real butchering to the public service.

There doesn't seem to be any sign of any measures like these coming in, though. You can huff and puff and talk about the IMF like you're in a school playground and Mr. Chopra's your big brother, but there's no indication of them considering moves like these.

Ah well, at least this discussion is a cheap way of passing a wet bank holiday monday.

The cost to the exchequer is more, as PRSI (employers and employees) goes into a fund, not magic money that the government puts back into day to day spending. On €50k PRSI is about €7,100 (10.75% employer + employee contribution.)

The EU/IMF aren't stupid. The plan called for 1.75% growth this year and 3.25% growth next year, with latest central bank predictions being 0.8% for this year and 2.1% next year.

Explain to me quite how they won't come to the conclusion that deep, deep cuts are required.

martian1980 · 01-08-2011 03:43PM

Nijmegen wrote: »

martian1980 wrote: »

rough calculation: lets say a public servant's average salary is 50k. The cost to the exchequer is just shy of 32k (www.taxcalc.eu). on social welfare, they'd get about 8k a year? add in rent allowance (another 7k a yearish? I'm really not sure) and a medical card and the other bits and peices and I'm sure it would end up at around 17k/year.
That would mean getting rid of them would result in a saving of about 15k/year. You'd have to give them a reduncancy payment too, so to make the kind of savings you guys want, you'd have to some real butchering to the public service.

There doesn't seem to be any sign of any measures like these coming in, though. You can huff and puff and talk about the IMF like you're in a school playground and Mr. Chopra's your big brother, but there's no indication of them considering moves like these.

Ah well, at least this discussion is a cheap way of passing a wet bank holiday monday.

The cost to the exchequer is more, as PRSI (employers and employees) goes into a fund, not magic money that the government puts back into day to day spending. On â‚¬50k PRSI is about â‚¬7,100 (10.75% employer + employee contribution.)

The EU/IMF aren't stupid. The plan called for 1.75% growth this year and 3.25% growth next year, with latest central bank predictions being 0.8% for this year and 2.1% next year.

Explain to me quite how they won't come to the conclusion that deep, deep cuts are required.

I can't speak for their internal thought processes, I can only look at what they've done so far and it looks like they do a small bit at a time and see what results it achieves.

You accept that the 50k figure is not a reflection of the cost of a "50k wage" to the state - more like 25k. What cuts do you propose?

SBWife · 01-08-2011 03:44PM

martian1980 wrote: »

rough calculation: lets say a public servant's average salary is 50k. The cost to the exchequer is just shy of 32k (www.taxcalc.eu). on social welfare, they'd get about 8k a year? add in rent allowance (another 7k a yearish? I'm really not sure) and a medical card and the other bits and peices and I'm sure it would end up at around 17k/year.
That would mean getting rid of them would result in a saving of about 15k/year. You'd have to give them a reduncancy payment too, so to make the kind of savings you guys want, you'd have to some real butchering to the public service.

There doesn't seem to be any sign of any measures like these coming in, though. You can huff and puff and talk about the IMF like you're in a school playground and Mr. Chopra's your big brother, but there's no indication of them considering moves like these.

Ah well, at least this discussion is a cheap way of passing a wet bank holiday monday.

You're also assuming that each public sector worker made redundant would be entitled to social welfare over the long term and rent allowance. The fact is many would be married and ineligible to receive Jobseekers Allowance under the means test after one year ditto rent allowance, medical cards etc. If this is the case the savings in year one (not including employers' PSRI and pension contributions) would be €24k for the first year when non-means tested Jobseekers Benefit would be paid increasing to €32k when their stamps ran out. Essentially double the savings detailed above and IMO well worth pursuing.

Welease · 01-08-2011 04:05PM

martian1980 wrote: »

I can't speak for their internal thought processes, I can only look at what they've done so far and it looks like they do a small bit at a time and see what results it achieves.

You accept that the 50k figure is not a reflection of the cost of a "50k wage" to the state - more like 25k. What cuts do you propose?

Employee costs are not that simple.... The salary element can account for less than 50% of the total costs of employment...

Each employee can require training, equipment, office/buildings, facilities, insurances, pension provision costs, heating, lighting, toilet facilities, staff to run those facilities, IT staff, canteen costs and staff, cleaning costs and staff, security staff, extra costs to process wages and entitlements etc etc etc etc..

sollar · 01-08-2011 04:45PM

meditraitor wrote: »

Public sector bill,

19bn per annum on wages and pensions,

The average wage has increased by 3% since 2007

and we still have apologists and excuse artists saying how they took at 10% drop in pay.......

No you didnt, the dogs in the street know that with the incremental rises you are "entitle to" that most of you are better paid than 4 years ago.

Quit the bull boys,

At any one time 1/4 of public servants get increments. 3/4 don't therefore most of us are not better off.

The PS paybill is 15.092 Bn. The Pension bill is 2.23 bn and they certainly don't get increments.

sollar · 01-08-2011 04:55PM

SBWife wrote: »

You're also assuming that each public sector worker made redundant would be entitled to social welfare over the long term and rent allowance. The fact is many would be married and ineligible to receive Jobseekers Allowance under the means test after one year ditto rent allowance, medical cards etc. If this is the case the savings in year one (not including employers' PSRI and pension contributions) would be €24k for the first year when non-means tested Jobseekers Benefit would be paid increasing to €32k when their stamps ran out. Essentially double the savings detailed above and IMO well worth pursuing.

Not forgetting either that most of the staff let go would be on a lot less than 50K. Not many of the big boys would be let go. It would the the lower paid. Last in - first out and all that.

SBWife · 01-08-2011 04:58PM

A properly run redundancy program would not be based on LIFO.

martingriff · 01-08-2011 05:03PM

murphaph wrote: »

If you are a dedicated public servant who gives their all then I'll be sorry if you lose your job just because of the date you joined the service.

It's a bullsh!t way to cut numbers. We need to remove the dead wood, not the decent workers. The problem is that the decent workers and dead wood stand shoulder to shoulder in the form of their union membership.

If a decent worker is prepared to stand in lock step with a waster, then the job of surgically removing wasters is made nigh on impossible.

The loss of jobs is nothing to rejoice in. The removal of wasters is however. It would pave the way for the better staff to have a chance of holding on to their pay if we weren't also paying for dead wood to punch in their hours and go home, having done little by way of productive work.

I hope they dont go last in first out and go by where the jobs are not needed no matter at what level they are in the public sector. However I will say this that while yes the waters and secent workers are in the union all decision in unions are done by vote and unfortunately there is a lot of people who stand by the unions still whatever they say but it is decreasing bit by bit if you can find the last few PS vote by unions. Also there in a lot of people in unions who do not vote which is a shame and if they did you might see a suprising result. We all know where this is going lets hope as i said at the start they look at where the jobs must go but that be a lot of senior public sector workers and while the goverment have tried by hitting the people with pay cuts at the top (unfortunately they are in contracts) I am not sure if they can hold there nerve when it comes to redundancies

meditraitor · 01-08-2011 05:06PM

sollar wrote: »

At any one time 1/4 of public servants get increments. 3/4 don't therefore most of us are not better off.

What does that mean?

That only 100,000 have received increments since the country crashed or in any one year only 100,000 get increments?

martingriff · 01-08-2011 05:09PM

sharper wrote: »

You mean except for pay rises in the form of pay increments?

I'm hoping you can square the pay increment issue with this statement.

Pay increment is not really a pay rise it is getting to our top pay over a number of years (for a CO thats 18 years). I would not consider it a pay rise givin that I am been paid less then people in my own grade.

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/en/civilservice/salary-scaling.do

meditraitor · 01-08-2011 05:11PM

martingriff wrote: »

Pay increment is not really a pay rise it is getting to our top pay over a number of years (for a CO thats 18 years). I would not consider it a pay rise givin that I am been paid less then people in my own grade.

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/en/civilservice/salary-scaling.do

if you earn more money its a pay rise, simple...spin it what ever way you like.

Look at the teachers for example, how many are supervisory grade as a proportion of the total? Go google.............

Welease · 01-08-2011 05:12PM

martingriff wrote: »

Pay increment is not really a pay rise it is getting to our top pay over a number of years (for a CO thats 18 years). I would not consider it a pay rise givin that I am been paid less then people in my own grade.

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/en/civilservice/salary-scaling.do

WOW.....................

sollar · 01-08-2011 05:13PM

meditraitor wrote: »

What does that mean?

That only 100,000 have received increments since the country crashed or in any one year only 100,000 get increments?

On average staff get between 7 and 10 increments. The rest of your working life as a public servant (up to 40 years) you will not be getting increments.

SBWife · 01-08-2011 05:17PM

martingriff wrote: »

Pay increment is not really a pay rise it is getting to our top pay over a number of years (for a CO thats 18 years). I would not consider it a pay rise givin that I am been paid less then people in my own grade.

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/en/civilservice/salary-scaling.do

But if I'm an accounts assistant in the private sector (for example) and I've no experience I enter the position at €17k after 2 years I get a pay rise to €18k because I've been in the job 2 years and I know a little more and probably get a little more work done in a given week. Now just because the most an accounts assistant gets paid in my company is €28k after 18 years doesn't mean increases in my pay to take me to that level over the next 18 years are not pay rises.

For fecks sake learn how to call a spade a spade.

murphaph · 01-08-2011 05:18PM

martingriff wrote: »

Pay increment is not really a pay rise it is getting to our top pay over a number of years (for a CO thats 18 years). I would not consider it a pay rise givin that I am been paid less then people in my own grade.

http://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/en/civilservice/salary-scaling.do

If your pay goes up it's a pay rise. It isn't that difficult a concept. I feel the PS workers who can't see that have probably never worked outside the PS where guaranteed pay increments are extremely rare. Pay normally only increases in the private sector with performance. If you're just an average performer, your pay won't increase. The PS should be no different.

Lumbo · 01-08-2011 05:18PM

meditraitor wrote: »

if you earn more money its a pay rise, simple...spin it what ever way you like.

So if you earn less money its a pay cut, spin it what ever way you like.

That's puts the Pension Levy argument to be then. It was a pay cut all along.

Welease · 01-08-2011 05:26PM

sollar wrote: »

On average staff get between 7 and 10 increments. The rest of your working life as a public servant (up to 40 years) you will not be getting increments.

Because promotion is not possible in the PS....

sollar · 01-08-2011 05:28PM

Welease wrote: »

Because promotion is not possible in the PS....

On Average... as was mentioned in my post. The majority of staff won't get promoted.

SBWife · 01-08-2011 05:29PM

The pension levy is that you're being made do what the private sector has been doing for the last 25 years carry some of the burden for the future cost of your retirement. Don't forget the private sector has also been hit by an increased pension levy in that the tax status of our contributions into private pension plans (which are defined contribution plans most of us don't even have the choice to pass the risk associated with our retirement, actuarial and otherwise on to another party - which I'd kill for) has changed significantly.

I understand why you're all so defensive because you've had protected status and significant perks for which you haven't had to pay the market value for and now times are changing. You're being asked to be competitive in terms of pay and performance and it's scaring the crap out of you. But it's got to happen and if I were you I'd be brushing up on my basic skills, so that either I was ready for the jobs market or that I'd be in the top performers and be able to retain a position in a lean mean civil and public service.

Head The Wall · 01-08-2011 05:32PM

sollar wrote: »

On average staff get between 7 and 10 increments. The rest of your working life as a public servant (up to 40 years) you will not be getting increments.

If you're good enough you will get a promotion, if you're not you shouldn't get any pay rise.

As a PS worker I am presuming that you expect to get increases all your life for just turning up to work.

SBWife · 01-08-2011 05:33PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

If you're good enough you will get a promotion, if you're not you shouldn't get any pay rise.

As a PS worker I am presuming that you expect to get increases all your life for just turning up to work.

No just 7 to 10 times

The whole up or out culture that exists in much of the corporate world would be a real shock to the system me thinks!

sollar · 01-08-2011 05:35PM

You people in the private sector need to be more productive and start employing people again. The 21 billion welfare bill is far too big. For every one taken off it and starting to pay tax, not relying on the state to pay their rent, medical card, fuel etc is almost like a double saving.

Spend your energies dreaming up ways to get our unemployed back to work and lets put the green eyed monster to bed. Begrudging public servants is not the way forward.

Welease · 01-08-2011 05:35PM

sollar wrote: »

On Average... as was mentioned in my post. The majority of staff won't get promoted.

Link to facts?

SBWife · 01-08-2011 05:41PM

sollar wrote: »

You people in the private sector need to be more productive and start employing people again. The 21 billion welfare bill is far too big. For every one taken off it and starting to pay tax, not relying on the state to pay their rent, medical card, fuel etc is almost like a double saving.

Spend your energies dreaming up ways to get our unemployed back to work and lets put the green eyed monster to bed. Begrudging public servants is not the way forward.

Reganomics - Reduce taxes, reduce the size of government by cutting public service numbers by 30-40% (our government workforce is significantly more bloated than that of the US in the early 1980s) and as discussed earlier it's significantly cheaper to keep a lazy former government worker on the dole than in their current position. The former government workers with initiative will find productive employment, start their own businesses, and in time employ individuals.

Welease · 01-08-2011 05:44PM

There should be an extension to Godwin's law..

Using the term "begrudgery" as your sole arguement in defence of a point.....

SBWife · 01-08-2011 05:46PM

Welease wrote: »

There should be an extension to Godwin's law..

Using the term "begrudgery" as your sole arguement in defence of a point.....

The specifically Irish O'Godwin's law?

Idbatterim · 01-08-2011 05:50PM

I know alot of the posters on here have a problem with the independent, but is it any worse than the lies, propaganda etc that the unions here spread?

Survey reveals a 44% pay gap between public and private sector

Comments