Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…1112141617…19

Comments

  • #392
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    fliball123 wrote: »
    really well an example would be a bank how many banking systems have you seen comprimised..The only ones in recent history is when laptops have been lost or stolen...So if your of the whole all IT systems can be hacked...let me ask you a question...Do you put your money in a bank if you do then you must trust there IT system...as I garentee you there are not 100 bank employees with cash and abacusses doing the sums on what you have in your account..its all done on an IT system...

    Try this
    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&biw=1259&bih=848&q=banking+system+hacked&oq=banking+system+hacked&aq=f&aqi=g-c9g1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=20415l21492l0l2l2l0l0l0l0l171l234l1.13l0l9l9l1l6l0l0l171l264l1.1


  • #393
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Where does that say anything that might imply i support siptu or FAS?

    That was clearly in reply to your suggestion that companies just sack employees with no legal comeback for said employees.

    I suggested you look at decisions of the labour court because this would highlight to you just how wrong your belief is!

    I never named siptu or FAS i never implied nor stated i suppported their current actions.
    You are wrong, your statements regarding me have been wrong all day.
    Pease refrain from making any more statements about my opinion.
    Unless i have expressed such an opinion to you and then please back up your claims with quotes.

    Ok let me break it down again..you think it wrong to take these holiday away from the FAS / Solais employees which is in line with SIPTU's thinking...That is the opinion you expressed


  • #394
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Ok let me break it down again..you think it wrong to take these holiday away from the FAS / Solais employees which is in line with SIPTU's thinking...That is the opinion you expressed

    Where?


  • #395
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Where?

    Robbie I posted it to you already ... right well get it straight for the record...Do you think it fair for FAS/Solais employees to be getting these extra holidays?? This will clear your name if I have besmurched you :)


  • #396
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Robbie I posted it to you already ... right well get it straight for the record...Do you think it fair for FAS/Solais employees to be getting these extra holidays?? This will clear your name if I have besmurched you :)

    At 12:26 i made this post in reply to you fliball
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73635205&postcount=360

    You are continuing to claim I made statements that not only did I not make but in fact denied making nearly two hours ago.

    You have nothing reasonable to say and now you are simply making up lies, I dont know how you raise your child but I know I wont be raising mine to tell lies!


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    At 12:26 i made this post in reply to you fliball
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73635205&postcount=360

    You are continuing to claim I made statements that not only did I not make but in fact denied making nearly two hours ago.

    You have nothing reasonable to say and now you are simply making up lies, I dont know how you raise your child but I know I wont be raising mine to tell lies!

    Why dont you answer the question...I already posted what I wrote and what you replied and your reply seemed to suggest you favoured Siptus "you cant just change the terms" as I say if you answer the question you set your stall out and if you are against Siptus angle I appologise if not I stick by what I said


  • #398
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Why dont you answer the question...I already posted what I wrote and what you replied and your reply seemed to suggest you favoured Siptus "you cant just change the terms" as I say if you answer the question you set your stall out and if you are against Siptus angle I appologise if not I stick by what I said

    This thread is not about siptu or FAS.
    I am not well versed in either issue and I wish to make no comment on them.

    That has been my stance throughout this thread and I will continue to keep it so.

    In my post at Today 14:08 i clarified my position regarding the post you quoted, seeing as i have never defended or oppossed either siptu or FAS im unsure why you continously seem to carry on with this angle of attack.

    My comment was about the labour courts decisions so seeing as they are suppossed to be impartial im not sure how me telling you to look at their decisions places me on any side of your off topic arguement!


  • #399
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    This thread is not about siptu or FAS.
    I am not well versed in either issue and I wish to make no comment on them.

    That has been my stance throughout this thread and I will continue to keep it so.

    In my post at Today 14:08 i clarified my position regarding the post you quoted, seeing as i have never defended or oppossed either siptu or FAS im unsure why you continously seem to carry on with this angle of attack.

    My comment was about the labour courts decisions so seeing as they are suppossed to be impartial im not sure how me telling you to look at their decisions places me on any side of your off topic arguement!


    I am not attacking you I am asking you to clarify your position..and yeah we have wasted posts on it so if you were not supporting siptu's position I appologise


  • #400
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    fliball123 wrote: »
    I am not attacking you I am asking you to clarify your position..and yeah we have wasted posts on it so if you were not supporting siptu's position I appologise

    By making false statements regarding my unexpressed opinion, you attacked me!


  • #401
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    By making false statements regarding my unexpressed opinion, you attacked me!


    and I have apologised move along


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    Itchianus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭Itchianus


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Good man give yourself an increment :)

    Reverts to default position... cheap points, arrogance etc. :rolleyes:

    I note you've decided to ignore my request that you provide some reasoned argument about how, in specific, you would like the PS pay issue to be tackled?

    You must have used the number 18bn more times than anyone on this thread. How much is the PS pay bill, and by how much does it need to be reduced, where and how?

    When you start making constructive suggestions we might be able to have a constructive debate. Otherwise you're just blowing off steam, and I won't be bothering to indulge you any further.

    I've made suggestions waaaay back in the thread, that pay scales be modified (reduce the top level if they're too high and have less steps, as it can't take anyone more than a few years to reach their potential in a job), and that increments be only paid to the top X% of performers.

    Some areas of the PS would appear to be very top heavy, or that seems to be the general consensus, that the bulk of the increase in numbers in the period prior to the recession was of management grades.

    It may well be necessary to have some kind of large scale audit of the work of the PS, to determine what staffing numbers / grades are needed, based on the volume and type of work carried out.

    I can tell you, and I have no doubt this would be vouched for by the type of HR audit I just described, the job I do requires a person who is an accountancy and/or tax professional, either by experience or qualification, or preferably both, and if the package doesn't equate to the private sector equivalent then Market forces dictate that you will end up with a Revenue that can't function properly.

    I'm not telling you everyone in Revenue, or the wider PS is worth what they're getting paid, but I would suggest to you that a process of pay reductions that just tars everyone with the same brush, while it may appear to save money, may well have the effect of forcing good staff to go elsewhere, and leave the substandard staff to do a substandard job, albeit for less pay. Not ideal for the arm of the state that collects the money (but the same principle applies to all PS entities).


  • #403
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Itchianus wrote: »
    Reverts to default position... cheap points, arrogance etc. :rolleyes:

    I note you've decided to ignore my request that you provide some reasoned argument about how, in specific, you would like the PS pay issue to be tackled?

    You must have used the number 18bn more times than anyone on this thread. How much is the PS pay bill, and by how much does it need to be reduced, where and how?

    When you start making constructive suggestions we might be able to have a constructive debate. Otherwise you're just blowing off steam, and I won't be bothering to indulge you any further.

    I've made suggestions waaaay back in the thread, that pay scales be modified (reduce the top level if they're too high and have less steps, as it can't take anyone more than a few years to reach their potential in a job), and that increments be only paid to the top X% of performers.

    Some areas of the PS would appear to be very top heavy, or that seems to be the general consensus, that the bulk of the increase in numbers in the period prior to the recession was of management grades.

    It may well be necessary to have some kind of large scale audit of the work of the PS, to determine what staffing numbers / grades are needed, based on the volume and type of work carried out.

    I can tell you, and I have no doubt this would be vouched for by the type of HR audit I just described, the job I do requires a person who is an accountancy and/or tax professional, either by experience or qualification, or preferably both, and if the package doesn't equate to the private sector equivalent then Market forces dictate that you will end up with a Revenue that can't function properly.

    I'm not telling you everyone in Revenue, or the wider PS is worth what they're getting paid, but I would suggest to you that a process of pay reductions that just tars everyone with the same brush, while it may appear to save money, may well have the effect of forcing good staff to go elsewhere, and leave the substandard staff to do a substandard job, albeit for less pay. Not ideal for the arm of the state that collects the money (but the same principle applies to all PS entities).

    To which I have responded that if we do not cut we have to increase tax...thats the equation...Would I like to see the 18bil taken out on cuts...yes i would but that would be too damaging to too many people..But you can be sure there will be tax increases and cuts to the social welfare..but with the CPA the PS pay and penions are off the table why?? This should also be cut along with the social welfare and with increased taxes...I have stated my position on this ..I am not arguing for just cutting PS pay and pensions I am arguing the fact that this prize pig of 16/17 odd billion is sacred and off the table for cuts..Does this answer your question


  • #404
    Itchianus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭Itchianus


    fliball123 wrote: »
    To which I have responded that if we do not cut we have to increase tax...thats the equation...Would I like to see the 18bil taken out on cuts...yes i would but that would be too damaging to too many people..But you can be sure there will be tax increases and cuts to the social welfare..but with the CPA the PS pay and penions are off the table why?? This should also be cut along with the social welfare and with increased taxes...I have stated my position on this ..I am not arguing for just cutting PS pay and pensions I am arguing the fact that this prize pig of 16/17 odd billion is sacred and off the table for cuts..Does this answer your question

    So, what you're saying is broadly speaking, you agree with the content of my last post?

    You see that's generally how a debate works - I make a suggestion or several, and then you address the points I've made...

    You'll clearly see if you read my post I don't believe anything should be off the table.


  • #405
    Itchianus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭Itchianus


    fliball123 wrote: »
    To which I have responded that if we do not cut we have to increase tax...thats the equation...Would I like to see the 18bil taken out on cuts...yes i would but that would be too damaging to too many people..But you can be sure there will be tax increases and cuts to the social welfare..but with the CPA the PS pay and penions are off the table why?? This should also be cut along with the social welfare and with increased taxes...I have stated my position on this ..I am not arguing for just cutting PS pay and pensions I am arguing the fact that this prize pig of 16/17 odd billion is sacred and off the table for cuts..Does this answer your question

    And no, it doesn't answer my question at all.

    Cut PS pay how, where and why? You've made general statements that are basic arithmetic and common sense.

    As for the deficit, how much of a deficit is it acceptable for us to run, in your opinion? Given that it's not mathematically possible, barring a quantum leap in economic growth, for us to balance the books in the next few years, what level of deficit can we run at, without taxing and cutting our economy to death?


  • #406
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    Itchianus wrote: »
    As for the deficit, how much of a deficit is it acceptable for us to run, in your opinion? Given that it's not mathematically possible, barring a quantum leap in economic growth, for us to balance the books in the next few years, what level of deficit can we run at, without taxing and cutting our economy to death?

    3%. Like it or not that is the figure.


  • #407
    fliball123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Itchianus wrote: »
    And no, it doesn't answer my question at all.

    Cut PS pay how, where and why? You've made general statements that are basic arithmetic and common sense.

    As for the deficit, how much of a deficit is it acceptable for us to run, in your opinion? Given that it's not mathematically possible, barring a quantum leap in economic growth, for us to balance the books in the next few years, what level of deficit can we run at, without taxing and cutting our economy to death?


    Not sure but leaving 16/17billion out of the cutting equation is not an very good approach in my opinion.....You could say leave ps workers under 30k alone between 30/40 cut say 2% and cut 2% more every 10k you go up

    so that would be
    4% for between 40k and 50k
    6& for between 50k and 60k

    and so on


  • #408
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    Itchianus wrote: »
    And no, it doesn't answer my question at all.

    Cut PS pay how, where and why? You've made general statements that are basic arithmetic and common sense.

    As for the deficit, how much of a deficit is it acceptable for us to run, in your opinion? Given that it's not mathematically possible, barring a quantum leap in economic growth, for us to balance the books in the next few years, what level of deficit can we run at, without taxing and cutting our economy to death?

    Can I ask how you would cut our spending or increase our taxes or increase our growth to bring our current deficit to 3% GDP?


  • #409
    ParkRunner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭ParkRunner


    fliball123 wrote: »
    Not sure but leaving 16/17billion out of the cutting equation is not an very good approach in my opinion.....You could say leave ps workers under 30k alone between 30/40 cut say 2% and cut 2% more every 10k you go up

    so that would be
    4% for between 40k and 50k
    6& for between 50k and 60k

    and so on

    I imagine that would decrease expenditure by less than a billion considering the pension levy, which applied to all didn't reach the €1bn mark. It is not an insignificant amount but it won't solve this country's problems.


  • #410
    Itchianus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭Itchianus


    OMD wrote: »
    Can I ask how you would cut our spending or increase our taxes or increase our growth to bring our current deficit to 3% GDP?

    I don't see how we can TBH.

    Do you?


  • #411
    Bens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 259 ✭✭Bens


    irishh_bob wrote: »
    public sector wages were ahead of private sectors wages all throughout the boom , the story to the contary is a union concocted one and one which has long been debunked

    Not ahead of mine they werent :)
    I worked on some jobs with public sector colleagues. I felt sorry for them. Still do.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    fliball123 wrote: »
    You could say leave ps workers under 30k alone between 30/40 cut say 2% and cut 2% more every 10k you go up

    so that would be
    4% for between 40k and 50k
    6& for between 50k and 60k

    and so on

    Even cutting our public sector wages by that amount will still mean that our public servants are rewarded more generously than those in the UK, which is one of the countries bailing us out and our nearest neighbour.


  • #413
    PoleStar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 774 ✭✭✭PoleStar


    gigino wrote: »
    Even cutting our public sector wages by that amount will still mean that our public servants are rewarded more generously than those in the UK, which is one of the countries bailing us out and our nearest neighbour.

    Wow you are clever.

    Although you could easily have worded this as "shop assistants are paid more" or perhaps "cleaners are paid more" or perhaps "lawyers are paid more".

    Bottom line is that in all sectors Irish people are paid more. But our cost of living is also higher.

    I mean, why choose the UK?

    Why not choose Poland where the average salary is 12,000 per year, I am sure your argument would have sounded more convincing. Oh wait no, cost of leaving is even cheaper there.

    Stupid stupid argument put out again and again.


  • #414
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    PoleStar wrote: »
    I mean, why choose the UK?
    Its the first example of a neighbouring country which springs to mind. It is the only country we share a land border with. Many of us have friends, relatives, old college pals etc across the border in N. Ireland, and/or in mainland Britain. We share a common language and much of the media is familiar ( papers, magazines, tv etc ). If you ever come across 2 public servants from the same uni class, one of whom works in the UK and one of whom works here in the Republic, chances are the person in the republic is paid twice as much. Petrol/diesel is cheaper here, and we have had ( up until the recent proposals anyway ) no domestic water charges, property tax etc. Pennys here is about the same as Primark in the UK. A hamburger here in a euro in McDonalds, its not half that in the UK ! Aldi / Lidl / Tesco etc is not double that in the UK. Property here can be got a lot less than most parts of the UK - some new 2 bedroom apartments are on sale now in Ireland for well less than 50k euro. So not surprising our public servants are still so much better off than those in other countries.


  • #415
    Itchianus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭Itchianus


    gigino wrote: »
    Its the first example of a neighbouring country which springs to mind. It is the only country we share a land border with. Many of us have friends, relatives, old college pals etc across the border in N. Ireland, and/or in mainland Britain. We share a common language and much of the media is familiar ( papers, magazines, tv etc ). If you ever come across 2 public servants from the same uni class, one of whom works in the UK and one of whom works here in the Republic, chances are the person in the republic is paid twice as much. Petrol/diesel is cheaper here, and we have had ( up until the recent proposals anyway ) no domestic water charges, property tax etc. Pennys here is about the same as Primark in the UK. A hamburger here in a euro in McDonalds, its not half that in the UK ! Aldi / Lidl / Tesco etc is not double that in the UK. Property here can be got a lot less than most parts of the UK - some new 2 bedroom apartments are on sale now in Ireland for well less than 50k euro. So not surprising our public servants are still so much better off than those in other countries.

    I'm not better paid than my equivalent in HMRC?


  • #416
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    Itchianus wrote: »
    I'm not better paid than my equivalent in HMRC?
    thats because you spend all day posting on the computer


  • #417
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    gigino wrote: »
    thats because you spend all day posting on the computer

    With 37 posts to his name :rolleyes:


  • #418
    SBWife
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭SBWife


    sollar wrote: »
    With 37 posts to his name :rolleyes:

    He re-registered specifically for this thread - he's made those 37 posts (many of which are detailed and complex) since returning to "work" from the bank holiday on Tuesday.


  • #419
    gigino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭gigino


    Itchianus wrote: »
    I'm not better paid than my equivalent in HMRC?
    then maybe you should apply to HMRC. Salaries for admin assistants start at just over fourteen grand stg. .http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/jobs/salaries.htm

    They are currently looking for officers who do not need to be UK nationals. Salary is a whopping 17.5k. stg.
    http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/jobs/admin/index.htm
    Compare that with the 48k or so which is our average public sector wage here.


  • #420
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    SBWife wrote: »
    He re-registered specifically for this thread - he's made those 37 posts (many of which are detailed and complex) since returning to "work" from the bank holiday on Tuesday.

    You're no stranger to a work time post yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    sollar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭sollar


    gigino wrote: »
    Compare that with the 48k or so which is our average public sector wage here.

    Doesn't tell us alot really ... well.... other than an average.


Advertisement