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

Welease · 01-08-2011 10:57PM

cymbaline wrote: »

I'm sure they will be at some stage. It's a very small step against the tide of money going in the other direction from my pay packet. Anyway, with the increased taxes that are coming my way and your way, the money won't be long about returning to the central coffers.

Seems to be a standard response of ignoring the question

I have no doubt the unions and PS employees en masse would have a different response

ardmacha · 02-08-2011 12:29AM

its part of the core problem of spiraling costs, lack of meritocracy, union interferance, sectorial jobs for life, and as we have seen here... the belief there merely turning up for work year after year should mean considerable wage increases irrespective of performance or results..

Don't be over-dramatic. The system may require fine tuning, but does not cost spiralling costs as the pattern of cost is perfectly predictable and does not spiral in a steady state situation.

barfizz · 02-08-2011 01:04AM

sollar wrote: »

1 of a difference hardly way off the mark... its not as if they have 25 :rolleyes:

Isn't this how all these PS threads end up..... off on a tangent over a petty squabble

Surely the difference between less than 7 (that would be 6 or less) and 8 is more than 1, or is this standard P.S. maths?

Itchianus · 02-08-2011 01:06AM

Welease wrote: »

Seems to be a standard response of ignoring the question I have no doubt the unions and PS employees en masse would have a different response

{Decided to create a new account for this post, as I'm divulging a lot of personal info!}

I'm a PS worker and I'd vote for a pay cut, across all points of a payscale, before I'd vote for a freeze on increments, and my reasons are very simple but I'll come to that further on.

I'll pin my colours to the mast before I continue, by saying that I am a PS worker on point 2 of a ten point scale, which takes 13 years to get to the top of (subject to performing satisfactorily every year), so I certainly have a vested interest in increments being left alone!

I do think I have a decent perspective to look at this whole Public vs Private argument, having spent nearly 10 years post-college working in private sector before I came into the PS last year, taking an 11% cut in my gross pay (and nearly 20% cut in net pay, after pension levy). The starting salary for the job I took in the PS, had already fallen by over 1k since the time I applied for the competition in 2008, by way of pay cut.

Now in accepting the offer of a permanent job in the PS, I had to weigh up the loss in immediate and potential earnings in the private sector, against other factors, such as greater job security, more flexible hours, higher annual leave, good pension, and VERY importantly, the incremental scale.

I am a hard worker, I've got a good degree and a professional accountancy qualification, and I have brought skills and experience into the job that weren't previously present in the office where I am based. But for the Official Secrets Act I would happily provide figures to prove that I've more than paid for myself since I took up my job last year...

I am also quite accountable in my position (unlike plenty in the PS), and the decisions I make are liable to be challenged through the courts, so I feel it is at least as responsible a position as I would have as an audit senior / audit manager working in accountancy practice.

There are plenty of others like me at present in the PS, coming into departments from private industry, with good qualifications and skills, unlike much of the older generations of the PS workforce, who may be in the only job they've ever had.

If the assertion made earlier in the thread is correct, that about 1/4 PS workers are receiving increments at any given time, then these people are either:

1. New recruits like myself, recruited out of a very competitive environment in recent years, or

2. Recently promoted people, who have shown themselves to be the most ambitious and hardworking people in their organisations.

To freeze increments en masse effectively leaves these two classes of people alienated, stuck at a salary level that may be <40% less than the deadwood (that we all know exists) who reached the same grade based on seniority many moons ago, and are happily shuffling paper around while waiting to cash in their generous pension (much more generous than the generous one I will get).

One effect of any kind of protracted freeze on increments would be to force the most capable and qualified people (and I class myself in this bracket!) back out to private industry, or to emigrate. These will be the people who are actually needed most - the ones who aren't "lifers", not institutionalised or full of a misguided sense of "entitlement", but who do know the value of their own CV. I'll be off to Oz or London, or somewhere if I'm told I'm not getting my increment for 3 years - the vacancy I leave behind probably won't be filled given the state of things now, and some waster will continue to be paid 60k a year to do nothing while I'm off contributing to the economy of Australia or England.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that there has to be change in our public service, but it can only succeed if the people in the organisation buy in - this won't happen if the measures deemed necessary to balance the books force out of the organisations the very people who are most likely to get behind (or even suggest) new initiatives to improve work practices and efficiency.

But I am a realist, and if the PS wage bill isn't falling fast enough through natural wastage and early retirements, then there will have to be further wage cuts and / or targeted redundancies, i.e. redundancies within particular departments, rather than blunt measures. This is just basic economic common sense.

The idea of making PS staff take a week of unpaid annual leave in the year was mentioned in the media last year, and I can't understand why it wasn't pushed through - straight away you effectively cut everyone's pay by almost 2%, but at least it's in a slightly more palatable way - based on the kind of numbers being bandied around here about the PS pay bill, that would yield substantially more than freezing increments, and I greatly doubt that output / service (to the extent that it is measurable) would fall by 2%. But again, such a measure could be introduced on a departmental basis, rather than necessarily across the board.

Another idea, when implementing any pay cut would be to hit the top of the payscale harder, so say in the example of my ten point scale, the top of the scale takes a 5% cut, the next level takes a 4% cut, next level a 3% cut, and so on down, and you can thereby protect the people lower down a payscale (i.e. less well off, and most recently promoted), from the effect of the pay cut, whilst maximising the saving, if it is the case that 3/4 workers are at the top of the scale...

Finally, to address the title of this thread, in the context of the job that I do, I'm not sure what job in the private sector you could equate to mine; I suppose an audit manager / tax consultant / tax accountant would be fairly close, and I can say with absolute certainty that I am not being paid 44% more than my private sector counterparts (as I outlined already I know I presently earn substantially less, albeit with better T&C's) but by virtue of an incremental scale that starts me off on 57% of my final salary, I will end up in the ballpark of what I would earn in the private sector.

Aw nuts, I just wanted to have my tuppence worth, and now look at the time!

Itchianus · 02-08-2011 01:14AM

barfizz wrote: »

Surely the difference between less than 7 (that would be 6 or less) and 8 is more than 1, or is this standard P.S. maths?

That is a truly insightful and productive contribution to the thread, I'm sure everyone appreciates you pointing that out barf... :rolleyes:

In fact the irony is delicious, as your post pretty much sums up exactly the point he was trying to make - threads like this are irresistible to posters who'd rather score cheap points and nitpick around the periphery than actually add something remotely meaningful to the discussion... Congrats!

Sure while you're at it, maybe go back and find a few typos and spelling mistakes to bring to our attention as well, I'm sure everyone would really appreciate that...

Sleepy · 02-08-2011 01:37AM

An increment is a guaranteed salary rise for time spent in service, not for any improvement in output, productivity or performance. There is no equivalent in the real economy and they should be scrapped immediately.

The reality in most of the private sector is pay freezes, cuts or redundancies. Some companies are managing to do well and their staff may be getting decent raises as a result. I'd see no problem to introducing a similar concept in the PS were the results being obtained e.g. increments scrapped but commensurate raises available for those staff responsible for savings significant enough to justify them. Those staff not managing to do so, however, or those who are unfortunate enough to be employed in positions where they're unnecessary and without the skill-set to be transferred to to a department where the workload demands extra staff would have to face the same consequences as those in the private sector.

As long as PS workers continue to support their unions, however, this seems quite an unlikely outcome.

Itchianus · 02-08-2011 02:01AM

Sleepy wrote: »

An increment is a guaranteed salary rise for time spent in service, not for any improvement in output, productivity or performance. There is no equivalent in the real economy and they should be scrapped immediately.

Well you see this is where reality and theory appear to diverge.

My understanding, as someone who couldn't have cared less about civil service pay scales until last year, is that when you start off in a job at a particular grade, you are expected to operate at a particular level.

Over time, as you gain experience, receive training, and your skills develop, you are expected to operate at increasingly higher levels of productivity / efficiency, and take on additional responsibility.

Most Govt departments now have in place PMDS (Performance Management and Development System), as the tool for setting performance targets, and rating performance etc...

The major problem is of course that practically no-one gets a low enough rating to merit not getting their increment. This then leads to the perception you have just displayed.

But another important point is (as I understand it, and maybe I'm deluded!), that the top point of the payscale is the salary for a person operating at the maximum required level for that grade. Now the idea that it takes, say, 12 years in the grade to get to that stage is actually the ridiculous thing if you ask me.

It takes 3 or 4 years to qualify in most professions, like accountancy, solicitors, or trades, so I think civil service pay scales would not be viewed as such bizarre entities if they were much shorter and therefore equated to something tangible in the private sector. This would require bigger increments, a higher starting point, or a lower maximum point. Since I don't accept that the maximum point of my grade is high relative to a comparable private sector job, then I suggest one of the other two options!

thebman · 02-08-2011 02:52AM

Itchianus wrote: »

It takes 3 or 4 years to qualify in most professions, like accountancy, solicitors, or trades, so I think civil service pay scales would not be viewed as such bizarre entities if they were much shorter and therefore equated to something tangible in the private sector. This would require bigger increments, a higher starting point, or a lower maximum point. Since I don't accept that the maximum point of my grade is high relative to a comparable private sector job, then I suggest one of the other two options!

This ignores that you don't automatically get the pay increase in the private sector. Generally the only way to get it is to secure a job elsewhere at a higher rate and see if your employer is willing to negotiate as most employers will simply refuse until your about to walk out the door.

and in many cases, they'll just let you walk and try to get someone for your original rate again.

Welease · 02-08-2011 08:16AM

Itchianus wrote: »

{Decided to create a new account for this post, as I'm divulging a lot of personal info!}

I'm a PS worker and I'd vote for a pay cut, across all points of a payscale, before I'd vote for a freeze on increments, and my reasons are very simple but I'll come to that further on.

I'll pin my colours to the mast before I continue, by saying that I am a PS worker on point 2 of a ten point scale, which takes 13 years to get to the top of (subject to performing satisfactorily every year), so I certainly have a vested interest in increments being left alone!

I do think I have a decent perspective to look at this whole Public vs Private argument, having spent nearly 10 years post-college working in private sector before I came into the PS last year, taking an 11% cut in my gross pay (and nearly 20% cut in net pay, after pension levy). The starting salary for the job I took in the PS, had already fallen by over 1k since the time I applied for the competition in 2008, by way of pay cut.

Now in accepting the offer of a permanent job in the PS, I had to weigh up the loss in immediate and potential earnings in the private sector, against other factors, such as greater job security, more flexible hours, higher annual leave, good pension, and VERY importantly, the incremental scale.

I am a hard worker, I've got a good degree and a professional accountancy qualification, and I have brought skills and experience into the job that weren't previously present in the office where I am based. But for the Official Secrets Act I would happily provide figures to prove that I've more than paid for myself since I took up my job last year...

I am also quite accountable in my position (unlike plenty in the PS), and the decisions I make are liable to be challenged through the courts, so I feel it is at least as responsible a position as I would have as an audit senior / audit manager working in accountancy practice.

There are plenty of others like me at present in the PS, coming into departments from private industry, with good qualifications and skills, unlike much of the older generations of the PS workforce, who may be in the only job they've ever had.

If the assertion made earlier in the thread is correct, that about 1/4 PS workers are receiving increments at any given time, then these people are either:

1. New recruits like myself, recruited out of a very competitive environment in recent years, or

2. Recently promoted people, who have shown themselves to be the most ambitious and hardworking people in their organisations.

To freeze increments en masse effectively leaves these two classes of people alienated, stuck at a salary level that may be <40% less than the deadwood (that we all know exists) who reached the same grade based on seniority many moons ago, and are happily shuffling paper around while waiting to cash in their generous pension (much more generous than the generous one I will get).

One effect of any kind of protracted freeze on increments would be to force the most capable and qualified people (and I class myself in this bracket!) back out to private industry, or to emigrate. These will be the people who are actually needed most - the ones who aren't "lifers", not institutionalised or full of a misguided sense of "entitlement", but who do know the value of their own CV. I'll be off to Oz or London, or somewhere if I'm told I'm not getting my increment for 3 years - the vacancy I leave behind probably won't be filled given the state of things now, and some waster will continue to be paid 60k a year to do nothing while I'm off contributing to the economy of Australia or England.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that there has to be change in our public service, but it can only succeed if the people in the organisation buy in - this won't happen if the measures deemed necessary to balance the books force out of the organisations the very people who are most likely to get behind (or even suggest) new initiatives to improve work practices and efficiency.

But I am a realist, and if the PS wage bill isn't falling fast enough through natural wastage and early retirements, then there will have to be further wage cuts and / or targeted redundancies, i.e. redundancies within particular departments, rather than blunt measures. This is just basic economic common sense.

The idea of making PS staff take a week of unpaid annual leave in the year was mentioned in the media last year, and I can't understand why it wasn't pushed through - straight away you effectively cut everyone's pay by almost 2%, but at least it's in a slightly more palatable way - based on the kind of numbers being bandied around here about the PS pay bill, that would yield substantially more than freezing increments, and I greatly doubt that output / service (to the extent that it is measurable) would fall by 2%. But again, such a measure could be introduced on a departmental basis, rather than necessarily across the board.

Another idea, when implementing any pay cut would be to hit the top of the payscale harder, so say in the example of my ten point scale, the top of the scale takes a 5% cut, the next level takes a 4% cut, next level a 3% cut, and so on down, and you can thereby protect the people lower down a payscale (i.e. less well off, and most recently promoted), from the effect of the pay cut, whilst maximising the saving, if it is the case that 3/4 workers are at the top of the scale...

Finally, to address the title of this thread, in the context of the job that I do, I'm not sure what job in the private sector you could equate to mine; I suppose an audit manager / tax consultant / tax accountant would be fairly close, and I can say with absolute certainty that I am not being paid 44% more than my private sector counterparts (as I outlined already I know I presently earn substantially less, albeit with better T&C's) but by virtue of an incremental scale that starts me off on 57% of my final salary, I will end up in the ballpark of what I would earn in the private sector.

Aw nuts, I just wanted to have my tuppence worth, and now look at the time!

The issue is... that unless some form of proper meritocracy is introduced, we don't change the cycle that has led to exactly the same problems you describe... lifers on the top of the scale who add little value and have no reason to change.. That is a problem..

Meritocracy shouldn't be seen as an issue.. if you are as good as you say you are.. then you would have no issues in reaching your expected level.. If not, then you are obviously not as good as you believe.. it's a fair system that rewards those who do actually "walk the walk"... ( I say You. but obviously I mean this in a generic sense

)

I am concerned with this assumption that hitting the top level of a pay grade is a right.. or that you are on 57% of your "final salary".. When your worked in the private sector did you and your management discuss your salary in terms of the fact that you would be automatically entitled to earn the top level of that pay scale? In over 25 years as a professional, I have never ever heard pay scales and salary discussed in such a fashion.. There was never an assumption that one should get to the top of a pay scale merely because they turned up for work..
The cost of providing services has to drop.. and if increments are kept in place the end result will be.. that those who deserve to be paid more will continue to be hit the same as those who do sod all... While we continue to employ those unnecessary staff, then those who are necessary will continue to take pay cuts to fund the unnecessary..

Rather than the usual PS vs Private debate... those who defend the status quo must someday understand that the status quo is what is hurting them the most...

Itchianus · 02-08-2011 08:39AM

thebman wrote: »

This ignores that you don't automatically get the pay increase in the private sector. Generally the only way to get it is to secure a job elsewhere at a higher rate and see if your employer is willing to negotiate as most employers will simply refuse until your about to walk out the door.

and in many cases, they'll just let you walk and try to get someone for your original rate again.

So could you explain how exactly you'd like to run the PS then?

I think you suggested already that everyone should be fired and rehired, but I mean beyond that, on an ongoing basis?

The consequence of what you appear to be suggesting would be that no-one who's actually worth their salt would stay working in the PS, or join in the first place, and staff turnover would be huge. Departments would be staffed primarily with people who don't have a clue what they're doing. Are you planning on making special dispensation for specialised areas like gardaÃ*, teachers and nurses?

What you're talking about in relation to letting people walk and replacing them at a lower rate may be true at relatively unskilled or clerical jobs, but not at higher levels. Take an accountancy practice, I'm hired as a trainee for peanuts, get increases as I progress and am capable of doing more complex work without supervision, and provided there is need for my skills as a qualified accountant when I qualify, I get paid the Market rate to stay.

Now consider a govt dept like, say, Revenue. Employees spend years building up their knowledge of the tax system. Even staff at the lowest levels need substantial training in the various IT systems and internal processes. People in the audit areas spend years learning about Revenue audit, negotiating settlements, prosecuting cases etc.

Under your model how do you propose to actually run or manage these departments on a daily basis? it's easy to say you'll let Market forces apply, but you may not like the consequences. Having never lived abroad, and not having studied any other countries' PS, I don't know this for a fact, but I would hypothesise that a low level of staff turnover, particularly in areas requiring specific skills, is a feature of all public sectors, including / especially the best ones.

Continuing with the Revenue example, staff with the best skills / experience will always able to command good money to switch back to the private sector to work as tax consultants helping wealthy people minimise their tax bills, while the ones who would stay will be the ones the private sector doesn't want to hire.

As I pointed out in my first post on this thread, if one accepts that there are about 1/4 of people on increments at any given time, by freezing increments, you don't hit the other 3/4 at all, and the 1/4 you do hit are likely to be the best performers (having been hired / promoted in a very competitive environment).

In taking my PS job, I based it on the fact that I am starting at 57% of the final salary for my grade, and the salary after 4 years would be in the mid-40's, by which stage I'd be pushing for promotion, a similar position to what I would expect myself to be in in the private sector. I took a substantial drop in salary to have that level of security. If that is taken away and I'm told I'm on 36k for the forseeable future, I'll just go back to the private sector, either here or abroad, where my skills can earn me more. This would be the case with a huge amount of the skilled people in the PS. All you'd be left with is the deadwood and the unskilled.

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 08:39AM

sollar wrote: »

Almost a quarter of private sector workers are on part time hours... i.e reduced hours. The public service aren't.

Nobody in the public service has received a pay rise in the last 4 years. We have all had our pay cut. Anything else is just spin and the Sunday Indpendant love spin.

So you havent heard ot the annual pay increments going on every year costing 1/4 of a billion in the PS yeah no pay increases they are pay incremenets ..keep spinning there kid

Vizzy · 02-08-2011 08:47AM

fliball123 wrote: »

So you havent heard ot the annual pay increments going on every year costing 1/4 of a billion in the PS yeah no pay increases they are pay incremenets ..keep spinning there kid

fliball,I'll save you reading about 10 pages of the thread.
The increment thing has been flogged to death and is going the way it went the last time on boards,and the time before that - nowhere.

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 08:50AM

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.

Does it mean paying more yes...does it cost the tax payer 1/4 of a billion a year...So its a payrise and it should have been cut out years ago.

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 09:05AM

Feeded wrote: »

Please stop this thread. . . . I'm exhausted from this perpetual ranting. . There shouldn't be another public v private dispute. allowed on boards.ie . .we've heard ALL sides of EVERY argument. . .enough.

For people who are tired of these threads stop reading them but I think until the gov grow a set and cut PS wage aswell as the dole and increase taxes in the budget I think that people paying tax have a right to vent their anger at a 300k section of society who are being sheilded going forward for paycuts when the country cannot afford their pay

20Cent · 02-08-2011 09:09AM

To put the 1/4 billion into context 3 property developers owe NAMA €2bn each while a further 12 owe over €1bn, but lets keep attacking the teachers and nurses!
This has more to do with a right wing agenda than actual savings.

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 09:17AM

scary wrote: »

I work in the private sector and i get a pay rise every year and a bonus and my wife works in the public sector and her wages are decreasing every year, there are thousands like this in Ireland.
This whole public sector better off than private sector isn't as black and white as its made out.

True but we the tax payer do not pay your wages so you can earn what you like there kid

bobbysands81 · 02-08-2011 09:26AM

OMD wrote: »

That is just so untrue. Now bobbysands show us some evidence. Everytime this type of crap comes up I ask PS workers for proof yet no one yet has. So, bobbysands81, be different provide the proof. Not just anecdotes, proof.

Even cymbaline has admitted his/her pay has gone up

Cymbaline's may have gotten a pay rise by way of increment but they lost FAR MORE from money taken away from them. So, in theory there was pay rises but the reality is that any gains were wiped out (multiple times) by what was taken away.

As for how my take home pay is down 20-25% - it's simple mate. I don't have the exact figures in front of me but both the pension levy and wage cut each took about 7.5% off my wages. That's my wages -15/16% Factor in tax increases and that brings my reduction in take home pay to above 20%.

I also gave up a pay increase of 12.5% a few years ago and the Govt reneged on other pay increases of circa 8% - I'm doing my bit.

Every cent of that money has gone back to the Exchequer to be redistributed to where it's needed the most - out of interest what have you given back to help us out of this mess? Like all other public service workers I'm doing my bit whilst many many aren't.

Finally, I am tied into long term financial arrangements that I made a number of years ago based on the wages I had at the time and wages that were due to me in agreements I had with my employer, I have nothing left to give. The public service are the only employees in this State who had their wages cut without their agreement.

bobbysands81 · 02-08-2011 09:27AM

fliball123 wrote: »

True but we the tax payer do not pay your wages so you can earn what you like there kid

...and therein lies the biggest misnomer of all!!!

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 09:28AM

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

Hang on if you get more money for doing the same job (Gross Pay) its a pay increment...You guys have such double standards..When people in the private sector say that your Pension levy is a contribution to a defined benefit ..The argument is that its a pay cut..We get paid less....So using the logic of your ilk..This is a payrise..how ever you want to dress it up it costs 1/4 of billion more every year for the tax payer

Itchianus · 02-08-2011 09:43AM

Welease wrote: »

The issue is... that unless some form of proper meritocracy is introduced, we don't change the cycle that has led to exactly the same problems you describe... lifers on the top of the scale who add little value and have no reason to change.. That is a problem..

Meritocracy shouldn't be seen as an issue.. if you are as good as you say you are.. then you would have no issues in reaching your expected level.. If not, then you are obviously not as good as you believe.. it's a fair system that rewards those who do actually "walk the walk"... ( I say You. but obviously I mean this in a generic sense )

I am concerned with this assumption that hitting the top level of a pay grade is a right.. or that you are on 57% of your "final salary".. When your worked in the private sector did you and your management discuss your salary in terms of the fact that you would be automatically entitled to earn the top level of that pay scale? In over 25 years as a professional, I have never ever heard pay scales and salary discussed in such a fashion.. There was never an assumption that one should get to the top of a pay scale merely because they turned up for work..
The cost of providing services has to drop.. and if increments are kept in place the end result will be.. that those who deserve to be paid more will continue to be hit the same as those who do sod all... While we continue to employ those unnecessary staff, then those who are necessary will continue to take pay cuts to fund the unnecessary..

Rather than the usual PS vs Private debate... those who defend the status quo must someday understand that the status quo is what is hurting them the most...

Couldn't agree with you any more strongly. Maybe I wasn't clear in my post - I think it's more obvious in my reply to Sleepy where I discussed PMDS, and the fact is that we do have a meritocratic system, in theory! The problem is of course how do you drive through the necessary change, so that it is meritocratic in reality.

(One possibility is that you say only the top X% of performers will get an increment. Now if X is too small a number, like maybe 20%, it will be a huge demotivation for people of limited ability - they will know that no matter how hard they work they'll never be in the top 20%, so why bother. It would work much better if it was a higher figure like 50% I think.)

This brings me back to the point from my earlier posts; that the incremental scale is supposed to allow for the fact that over time you'll improve and take on greater responsibility, and be generally more productive in return for your increments, and the top point of the scale indicates you are "all you can be"! :-D

The fact that this supposedly takes 13 years (in my grade) is a bit hard to swallow though, but then if the scales were shorter there'd be even more than 3/4 at the top of their scales..!

In a meritocracy you only get the increment if your performance matches or exceeds expectations, this is basic common sense. However office politics, unions and all the rest can and will come into play. The amount of administration required is enormous, as everyone will be making note of their personal ammunition on a daily basis, to justify why I'm better than jimmy beside me and I should get my increment if he gets his etc...

What do other countries' Public Sectors do about payscales, increments etc.? I think they have incremental scales in England as well, just wondering how different / alike we are compared to other Western developed countries?

Oh and to answer your question, when I was a trainee accountant, my employer (it was a fairly small practice) said to me several times during yearly or half-yearly review that when I was a couple of years post-qualified he'd have no problem paying me 40 - 45k, so yes in some areas of the private sector at least, there is an expectation of a scale based on performance. But I take your point that in general that's not the case.

I can only counter by telling you straight up, I wouldn't have taken my job if there wasn't a salary scale. If I got offered my job for 33k and no incremental scale, I'd say ok I can have a secure pensionable 33k a year for life, or take my chances in the private sector on substantially better money for the forseeable future, and my choice wouldve been no thanks, keep your 33k... The only reason I took the job is because, subject to satisfactory performance, I would be over 40k within 3 years. Still probably less than I could get in the private sector, but there is more to life than just money.

So to a certain extent I do believe I have a right to attain the top of my pay scale, if I'm doing a good job why shouldn't I be paid the same as my colleague who's been doing it less well but for longer. By all means, cut pay if that's necessary, but increments based on performance aren't the elephant in the room.

Itchianus · 02-08-2011 09:54AM

fliball123 wrote: »

Hang on if you get more money for doing the same job (Gross Pay) its a pay increment...You guys have such double standards..When people in the private sector say that your Pension levy is a contribution to a defined benefit ..The argument is that its a pay cut..We get paid less....So using the logic of your ilk..This is a payrise..how ever you want to dress it up it costs 1/4 of billion more every year for the tax payer

The point of increments is that it's not supposed to be more money for the same job, it's supposed to reflect an increase in performance as a person becomes more experienced in a role.

Increments are subject to satisfactory performance, I've spent 90% of my working life in the private sector and while it is different to private sector it's not that hard to wrap my head around the idea that you don't start the job on the full salary, you get the full salary when you're fully proficient at the job...

Welease · 02-08-2011 09:55AM

Just to clarify

There should be pay scales.. and people should be given the opportunity to get to the top... But getting to the top should be based on merit not on length of service..

Which is essentially what you had in your private sector job previously.. Your boss would have no problem paying you 40-50K presumably on the agreement that your work merited those increases.. In the PS you could potentially reach that 40-50K without having demonstrated any increase in value..

At the end of the day.. there is a limited pot available for salary in the PS (or anywhere for that matter).. lack of meritocracy just means those who work hardest get hit the most.. Their rise up the salary ladder is restricted to continually fund those who have not earned an increment...

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 09:57AM

ardmacha wrote: »

This increment thing is a distraction. Of course an increment is a pay rise in that your pay rises. However, this is an increase due to experience not wage inflation. There is plenty of scope for debate on the exact operation of the increment system and a more assessment based system is needed, but it is a separate issue from that of wage inflation (or deflation).

The point is that this public finance thing requires long term sustainability, it isn't just a panic for a few months. You can fiddle around with promotions etc in the short term, but it is tinkering with the problem rather than solving it.

So its happy days here again..eh..Regardless of the fact that we are borrowing 18billion to keep the lights on ..But because of experience the PS should get these increments..Please some common sense it is costing 1/4 of a billion a year..If this was cut it would go some way to appeasing some people as it is completely wrong that any pay increments are being paid at a time when the employer (the state) is bankrupt

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 10:06AM

Vizzy wrote: »

fliball,I'll save you reading about 10 pages of the thread.
The increment thing has been flogged to death and is going the way it went the last time on boards,and the time before that - nowhere.

Haha too feckin late

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 10:08AM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

...and therein lies the biggest misnomer of all!!!

EXPLAIN?

fliball123 · 02-08-2011 10:09AM

Itchianus wrote: »

The point of increments is that it's not supposed to be more money for the same job, it's supposed to reflect an increase in performance as a person becomes more experienced in a role.

Increments are subject to satisfactory performance, I've spent 90% of my working life in the private sector and while it is different to private sector it's not that hard to wrap my head around the idea that you don't start the job on the full salary, you get the full salary when you're fully proficient at the job...

But the fact of the matter is very few pay rises are going on in tha private sector...and if a company was losing 18bill a year there certainly would be no pay rises going on....No matter how effiecient your little cog in the machine was running....

SBWife · 02-08-2011 10:13AM

The other issue is that if I (or anyone else) were working for a private sector employer who was essentially bankrupt as the Irish Government there would be no raises available whatever name you call them regardless of individual performance or time served.

Itchianus · 02-08-2011 10:16AM

fliball123 wrote: »

So its happy days here again..eh..Regardless of the fact that we are borrowing 18billion to keep the lights on ..But because of experience the PS should get these increments..Please some common sense it is costing 1/4 of a billion a year..If this was cut it would go some way to appeasing some people as it is completely wrong that any pay increments are being paid at a time when the employer (the state) is bankrupt

Sorry could you expand on this a bit?

Are you saying there should be no salary scales at all then, or what?

And I should continue to be forever paid 20k a year less than my longer serving colleagues who are arguably less qualified and less IT literate than me?

If you haven't read my previous posts on this thread could you please maybe have a look at them, and maybe address some of my points, preferably with something more specific than "increments should be stopped", or a suggestion for how you would adjust the pay structure to try to retain any high skilled and well qualified staff in a PS without increments.

20Cent · 02-08-2011 10:17AM

SBWife wrote: »

The other issue is that if I (or anyone else) were working for a private sector employer who was essentially bankrupt as the Irish Government there would be no raises available whatever name you call them regardless of individual performance or time served.

Really?
The financial system,
Developers,
Banking of course,
Farming,
Anything that supplies the public sector,
lots of others.
Plenty of business run at losses for years before they get big.

Itchianus · 02-08-2011 10:28AM

SBWife wrote: »

The other issue is that if I (or anyone else) were working for a private sector employer who was essentially bankrupt as the Irish Government there would be no raises available whatever name you call them regardless of individual performance or time served.

So, given that about 1/4 PS workers are on increments, and these are the ones who logic would suggest are the best performers, (the other 3/4 being more highly paid by having reached the top of the scale but not being promoted), your solution is to alienate and disenfranchise these people, while continuing to pay top dollar to the people who couldn't get promoted....??

If you read back through my posts (they are lengthy!) you'll see I've suggested more equitable ways of getting the necessary savings, than by forcing the best staff back out into the private sector.

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

Comments