Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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

12357…19

Comments

  • #122
    SBWife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭SBWife


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    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?

    It's a newspaper therefore should be responsible to the whole Edmund Burke Fourth Estate ideal but it's patently not.

    The Unions spread propaganda and mis-truths but at least that's obviously for their own benefit.


  • #123
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    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?

    Like most "analysis" of information, it will be tainted by background, desire, agenda etc.. It's up to the reader to understand and filter..

    Most however will filter given their own background, desires, agenda etc..

    Hence the circular, and ongoing discussions here.... ;)


  • #124
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    SBWife wrote: »
    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.

    USA is not a great system to follow. They have a massive disparity between rich and poor.

    You had a thread a few weeks ago showing the number of PS staff by EU countries. We weren't overstaffed as far as i can remember.


  • #125
    Nijmegen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    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?

    I believe the saving would be higher than that. In any event, the precise figures would need to come from government, so lets just agree it will be a 'notable' saving if we cut 10,000 or 100,000 public service jobs.

    As to other posters, I believe in a structured redundancy program. I again point to private sector companies - some larger than our public sector - that have shaven down and refocused in recent years. HP being a great example, cutting tens of thousands of jobs and creating new ones elsewhere where needed.

    Fire the people you don't need, not just the first chump who walked in the door.

    We could talk for hours about how to do it, but I see it as an opportunity to break the inefficiency that is rife in the structure of the PS - and I daresay many PS workers would agree with the proposals, bar any to cut their own job.

    I'd send in the same sorts of fellas who sized up cuts in HP and dozens of other big corporations, and some senior managers from successful public services we admire, and get them to root and branch cull crap management, unnecessary administration, units we don't need, amalgamate stuff (and further cut staff with inefficiencies wormed out), and then make the decisions on what we want but can no longer afford.

    At the moment we cut soft targets, like SNA's because they're not on permanent contracts. Meanwhile, how many of the quangos Bord Snip Nua told us could go, or be amalgamated, actually have been?
    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.

    Firstly, the CPA report says the pay bill is €15.712bn (you're right on pensions.)

    Secondly, 25% of a workforce receiving a pay increase in any given year is a massive amount.
    Pay increment is not really a pay rise
    ...
    .........
    ...............................

    You're having a laugh, right?
    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 don't get a promotion, that's really your problem.

    Also, automatic pay increases (as I've said) are complete bull.
    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.

    Firstly, the private sector is getting productive, and is exporting away happily. The domestic economy, taxed to high heaven and with 25% of the workforce only working part time (not by choice) is dying on its feet. Not its fault.

    As Colm McCarthy said the other evening, politicians talk about growth like its a policy instrument. Its not.

    I agree, welfare needs to have a swing taken at it also.

    It's not an either/or debate!

    Discussing public sector pay and numbers in a €50bn state earning €32bn in tax and an €18bn deficit with a pay bill of near €18bn has nothing to do with 'begrudging'.
    USA is not a great system to follow. They have a massive disparity between rich and poor.

    You had a thread a few weeks ago showing the number of PS staff by EU countries. We weren't overstaffed as far as i can remember.

    US or not, overstaffed or not, €18bn a year deficit with government spending ahead in H12011 vs H12010 is a very simple, plain fact.


  • #126
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    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.
    .
    You are assuming every PS employee let go would go onto become long term unemployed. None of them would get jobs elsewhere and none would go on to start their own businesses and become employers. I am not saying you are wrong but if you are correct it doesn't say a lot for your opinion of PS workers.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    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.

    Sollar, you have a tendency to make up figures and try and quote them as fact. That statement is so obviously made up.


  • #128
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    OMD wrote: »
    Sollar, you have a tendency to make up figures and try and quote them as fact. That statement is so obviously made up.

    How is it wrong. Some positions only have 3 increments some have up to 13. Between 7 and 10 isn't far away on average.

    I had a look through lots of them on impact website there an hour ago.


  • #129
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    sollar wrote: »

    How is it wrong. Some positions only have 3 increments some have up to 13. Between 7 and 10 isn't far away on average.

    I had a look through lots of them on impact website there an hour ago.
    What about teachers with about 20 increments? What about people getting promoted? How many entry level positions have less than 7 increments? I looked through the CPSU site, and nearly all pay scales they give gets more increments than your 13 max level


  • #130
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    OMD wrote: »
    What about teachers with about 20 increments? What about people getting promoted? How many entry level positions have less than 7 increments?

    Chef, Psychiatrist, Audiologist etc


  • #131
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    sollar wrote: »
    How is it wrong. Some positions only have 3 increments some have up to 13. Between 7 and 10 isn't far away on average.

    I had a look through lots of them on impact website there an hour ago.

    So... as previously requested... give a link where it shows that the average PS worker only received between 7-10 increments over a 40 year span (including promotions)....

    Otherwise... as accussed, you are just making up data...


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    sollar wrote: »
    OMD wrote: »
    What about teachers with about 20 increments? What about people getting promoted? How many entry level positions have less than 7 increments?

    Chef, Psychiatrist, Audiologist etc
    Now think how many get more than 13. By the way psychiatrists get more than 7 increments. Consultant psychiatrist is top level so they have been promoted to that level and had increments at the other levels


  • #133
    SBWife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭SBWife


    sollar wrote: »
    USA is not a great system to follow. They have a massive disparity between rich and poor.

    What's wrong with that? You prefer the Cuban ideal where everyone is poor?


  • #134
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    Welease wrote: »
    So... as previously requested... give a link where it shows that the average PS worker only received between 7-10 increments over a 40 year span (including promotions)....

    Otherwise... as accussed, you are just making up data...

    http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/salary-scales-t-53_54.html


  • #135
    SBWife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭SBWife


    sollar wrote: »
    http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/salary-scales-t-53_54.html

    That information is not accessible to non-Trade Union members.


  • #136
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    sollar wrote: »
    http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/salary-scales-t-53_54.html

    It's nothing to do with salary scales...

    You were stating, that over a 40 year period the average PS employee would only receive between 7 and 10 increments..

    Given that you are argueing that the Indo etc. continually make up data, you are being asked to demonstrate the analysis and data that has led you to make such a claim..

    Do you have a link to the claim you are making, or a link to the analysis you have done... or are you ... making up this data?

    Payscales prove nothing.. as per my post a couple of pages ago.. if promotions were not possible then that would form the basis of your claim.. however promotions are possible so based on that alone... you claim is false..

    So please link to evidence that PS workers on average only receive between 7-10 increments over a 40 year period.....


  • #137
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    sollar wrote: »
    Increments form part of a pay structure. At anyone time only about a 1/4 of PS staff will be getting increments. That is because for the majority of your working life as a public servant you will be on the max of the scale.... the wage an experienced employee is considered to be worth at that particular role 100%.

    If your still on the incremental scales you have not reached that level yet so you are being paid at 65%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and finally 100% (or full pay for the particular post). As agreed on your contract. Increments is what they are called not pay rises.

    A pay rise would be over and above that.

    And ergo... a paycut would be under the lowest level of those contracts..

    Therefore the PS have not had any paycuts?


  • #138
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,559 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    SBWife wrote: »
    That information is not accessible to non-Trade Union members.


    Try this its the from the publicjobs website

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


  • #139
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,559 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Welease wrote: »
    It's nothing to do with salary scales...

    You were stating, that over a 40 year period the average PS employee would only receive between 7 and 10 increments..

    Given that you are argueing that the Indo etc. continually make up data, you are being asked to demonstrate the analysis and data that has led you to make such a claim..

    Do you have a link to the claim you are making, or a link to the analysis you have done... or are you ... making up this data?

    Payscales prove nothing.. as per my post a couple of pages ago.. if promotions were not possible then that would form the basis of your claim.. however promotions are possible so based on that alone... you claim is false..

    So please link to evidence that PS workers on average only receive between 7-10 increments over a 40 year period.....

    This has the payscales for the PS. I for 1 would like to have just one pay level but i would either mean that everyone been at the top of the scale of those at the top of the scale to get a pay cut

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


  • #140
    Vizzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭Vizzy


    Correct me if I'm wrong here.
    If you earned €500 (basic pay) last week and you earn €400 this week,is that not a paycut ?.
    I didn't realise that it only became a paycut once you are earning less now than you were when you entered the job 20 or 30 years ago.


  • #141
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,559 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Welease wrote: »
    And ergo... a paycut would be under the lowest level of those contracts..

    Therefore the PS have not had any paycuts?


    Yes they have taken a pay cut as

    1. there pay now has been cut not just the top on the payscale. Are you saying because someone is not at the top scale and now getting less money than they were getting 4 years ago there not getting a cut.

    and

    2. They will not get what was the top pay in the scale and what it was at it has been cut

    So ergo getting less money than they would have been getting equals a pay cut

    (in my book anyway)


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    Welease wrote: »
    It's nothing to do with salary scales...

    You were stating, that over a 40 year period the average PS employee would only receive between 7 and 10 increments..

    Given that you are argueing that the Indo etc. continually make up data, you are being asked to demonstrate the analysis and data that has led you to make such a claim..

    Do you have a link to the claim you are making, or a link to the analysis you have done... or are you ... making up this data?

    Payscales prove nothing.. as per my post a couple of pages ago.. if promotions were not possible then that would form the basis of your claim.. however promotions are possible so based on that alone... you claim is false..

    So please link to evidence that PS workers on average only receive between 7-10 increments over a 40 year period.....

    All of the data on increments are in the link provided. There is alot of info in there. I would be copying and pasting for a long time to present it. I'm sorry but i couldn't be bothered doing that.


  • #143
    SBWife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭SBWife


    sollar wrote: »
    I'm sorry but i couldn't be bothered doing that.

    Typical, you learn that on the job?


  • #144
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Vizzy wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong here.
    If you earned €500 (basic pay) last week and you earn €400 this week,is that not a paycut ?.
    I didn't realise that it only became a paycut once you are earning less now than you were when you entered the job 20 or 30 years ago.

    Nope.. according to Sollar... a teacher moving from a salary of €30,904 up to €59,359 hasn't actually received a pay rise...

    If it's within the upper and lower bandscales of a pay band.. any movement is contractual..(and therefore immune to the law of english and maths)


  • #145
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    SBWife wrote: »
    Typical, you learn that on the job?

    You can't help yourself SB. Its just in you.


  • #146
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    martingriff wrote: »
    Yes they have taken a pay cut as

    1. there pay now has been cut not just the top on the payscale. Are you saying because someone is not at the top scale and now getting less money than they were getting 4 years ago there not getting a cut.

    and

    2. They will not get what was the top pay in the scale and what it was at it has been cut

    So ergo getting less money than they would have been getting equals a pay cut

    (in my book anyway)

    No, I am responding to a poster (sollar) who claims (as quoted) that a pay rise is not a payrise until the top of the pay band has been hit.. ergo.. a paycut is not a pay cut until the lower band has been exceeded..

    If you have an issue with that logic, then you are welcome to address his initial post.. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73576326&postcount=23


  • #147
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    sollar wrote: »
    All of the data on increments are in the link provided. There is alot of info in there. I would be copying and pasting for a long time to present it. I'm sorry but i couldn't be bothered doing that.

    Increments are posted... but as I am sure you are well aware.. a breakdown of increments implemented across PS sectors is not readily available otherwise you would have posted it with glee and an appropriate comment..

    But you didn't... Is it unfair to assume you may have made up the actual numbers? (somewhat ironic considering you have an issue with the Indo for doing the same..)


  • #148
    damino
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52 ✭✭damino


    Employee breakdown, hat large multinationals and companies consist of, with the top with Senior Managers, bottom consisting of the lowest paid. Annual leave based on service. So employee breakdown symbol would be a triangle.

    Public Sector/Civil Service Recruitment over the past 12 years employee recruitment consisting of little recruitment at the bottom, middle management an increase of between 100% and 150% with senior management seeing a recruitment increase of up to 400%. Facts were provided by the CSO. Does not make sense, more recruitment at middle and senior positions. Also the shocking horror is the higher the grade the more annual leave they get. Lower grades consist mainly of women and highest grades predominantly men, just like out political landscape. No wonder there is a huge budget deficit and the country is broke.


  • #149
    Stavro Mueller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,673 ✭✭✭Stavro Mueller


    An increment is a pay rise but getting to the top of the salary scale is a long slow climb. Sure, increments might still be coming out of the public purse but they're not worth an awful lot of money to the average public servant after taxes and levies. The money that has been taken out of their take home pay is significantly more.


  • #150
    Welease
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    cymbaline wrote: »
    An increment is a pay rise but getting to the top of the salary scale is a long slow climb. Sure, increments might still be coming out of the public purse but they're not worth an awful lot of money to the average public servant after taxes and levies. The money that has been taken out of their take home pay is significantly more.

    250m according to Noonan.. but yet people are pissing and moaning about a Property Tax which will raise 160m...


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Vizzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭Vizzy


    Welease wrote: »
    Nope.. according to Sollar... a teacher moving from a salary of €30,904 up to €59,359 hasn't actually received a pay rise...

    If it's within the upper and lower bandscales of a pay band.. any movement is contractual..(and therefore immune to the law of english and maths)

    Welease, can you point me to one of these jobs where you go from €30,904 to €59,359 in one year ( I'd love one of these jobs)or is this only from 2009 to now,cos if it is I don't think I'd be bothered !:)


Advertisement