Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

CSO report on public-private pay gap

1…1012141516

Comments

  • #332
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    Not a banker and have little enough time for them, however I have done buisness with them, I borrowed money from them. I farm which you will see from the farming threads. As well I have a PAYE job.

    However what annoys me is the way some people blame bankers, politicians and builders for all the problems we have. How some poster fail to see that public service wages climbed 60% in the boom. No blame is attached to the insatible desire for pay rises during the boom by PS. No blame is attached to the Unions that were in bed with FF during the boom. No blame is attached to the failure of the public service to regulate banks and finiancial services in Ireland during that period.

    http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=PSA01.asp&TableName=Public+Sector+Average+Weekly+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_PS


    How much did the dole go up during the boom. Also how much did private wages go up.


  • #333
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    However what annoys me is the way some people blame bankers, politicians and builders for all the problems we have.

    Perhaps that is because they are responsible, along with those who borrowed money they cannot pay back? The PS are basically bystanders in this process.


  • #334
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    woodoo wrote: »
    How much did the dole go up during the boom. Also how much did private wages go up.


    Not to talk about double-jobbing farmers who by taking PAYE jobs as well as their farm prevent ordinary decent people from getting a job.


  • #335
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 54,075 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    Not a banker and have little enough time for them, however I have done buisness with them, I borrowed money from them. I farm which you will see from the farming threads. As well I have a PAYE job.

    However what annoys me is the way some people blame bankers, politicians and builders for all the problems we have. How some poster fail to see that public service wages climbed 60% in the boom. No blame is attached to the insatible desire for pay rises during the boom by PS. No blame is attached to the Unions that were in bed with FF during the boom. No blame is attached to the failure of the public service to regulate banks and finiancial services in Ireland during that period.

    http://www.cso.ie/quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=PSA01.asp&TableName=Public+Sector+Average+Weekly+Earnings&StatisticalProduct=DB_PS

    What about all the grants that were thrown at the farmers in that time and the very little in taxation they paid towards the running of the country? Were these not too generous and contributing to the problem too?


  • #336
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Seriously the last four or five posts are a prime example of what is wrong with this forum.

    "As long as it's not me, I'll have a swipe at another party"


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    sock puppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    Godge wrote: »
    Not to talk about double-jobbing farmers who by taking PAYE jobs as well as their farm prevent ordinary decent people from getting a job.

    What on earth is wrong with having a 2nd income?


  • #338
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    woodoo wrote: »
    How much did the dole go up during the boom. Also how much did private wages go up.

    Here's some slightly older figures (edited for table format):
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    Average Industrial wage - up to 2006
    Year | amt € | % change
    2000 | 423.24 |
    2001 | 456.97 | +8
    2002 | 483.02 | +5.7
    2003 | 511.78 | +6
    2004 | 534.24 | +4.4
    2005 | 557.57 | +4.4
    2006 | 575.21 | +3.2


    The CSO changed the statistics regarding the average wage in 2007, no figures available
    Year | amt € | % change
    2008 | 720.57 |
    2009 | 717.81 | -0.4
    2010 | 701.93 | -2.2
    2011 | 697.65 | -0.6
    2012 | 687.84 | 1.4


  • #339
    sarumite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Godge wrote: »
    Not to talk about double-jobbing farmers who by taking PAYE jobs as well as their farm prevent ordinary decent people from getting a job.

    I used to get maths grinds from a local teacher....its not just farmers who are double jobbing.


  • #340
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    woodoo wrote: »
    How much did the dole go up during the boom. Also how much did private wages go up.

    Like I have posted elsewhere it is part of the problem.
    ardmacha wrote: »
    Perhaps that is because they are responsible, along with those who borrowed money they cannot pay back? The PS are basically bystanders in this process.

    Let me see the Centeral Bank in charge of banking regulation, the County Councils in charge of planning and planning enforcement, The Dept of Finance in charge of the economy, the finiancial regulator in charge of make sure pension funds, fiancial products and bank lending was done correctly.The Unions with there snouts in the benchmadking trough.
    Godge wrote: »
    Not to talk about double-jobbing farmers who by taking PAYE jobs as well as their farm prevent ordinary decent people from getting a job.

    As I work in the private sector and am unsure of my pension I chose to fund my pension by farming ( I did not get left it ). Neither can i be gauranteed that the state will provide me with 50% of my salary on retiring
    tayto lover wrote: »
    What about all the grants that were thrown at the farmers in that time and the very little in taxation they paid towards the running of the country? Were these not too generous and contributing to the problem too?

    A lot of the reson is thta costs added to the economy dyring the boom nearly caused us the loss of farming to the economy just as it did tourism


  • #341
    frankosw
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 809 ✭✭✭frankosw


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    Neither can i be gauranteed that the state will provide me with 50% of my salary on retiring


    But the state *will* povide you with the standard old age pension when you retire whether you've contributed to it or not.

    The PS contribute 15% of thier salary to thier pension..do you?

    You make it sound like you're going to be living in penury despite enjoying some of the highest state-funded subsidies in the world..there is NO such thing a poor farmer.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    creedp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,216 ✭✭✭creedp


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    The Unions with there snouts in the benchmadking trough.

    Ah c'mon didn't the farmers get a priviledged position in the 'Partnership' process and could have derailed any deals done if they felt so emotive about it. Truth was the farmers did fairly well out of the process themselves, hence the tacit agreement with all things Partnership. Eaten bread ........

    A lot of the reson is thta costs added to the economy dyring the boom nearly caused us the loss of farming to the economy just as it did tourism

    What costs? Bottom line is that without government supports, farming would not be competitive in Ireland. I'm not advocating the removal of supports as I think its right to support farming (especially small full time farmers who make a living from the land as against the factory farmers like O'Leary and many others who treat it like a hobby which the taxpayer very hansomely supports) which is an indigenous industry and supports many jobs in the country. However, I always find it a little hard to swallow when I hear farmers complaining about their lot and blaming other sectors for their plight. I know plenty of farmers who are doing very nicely thank you very much and visiting a mart will give you a quick insight into the vibrancy of the farming spending power. On a bright sunny day you would need shades for protection from the sun reflecting off those lovely shiny trailers and 4wds.


  • #343
    frankosw
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 809 ✭✭✭frankosw


    creedp wrote: »
    Ah c'mon didn't the farmers get a priviledged position in the 'Partnership' process and could have derailed any deals done if they felt so emotive about it. Truth was the farmers did fairly well out of the process themselves, hence the tacit agreement with all things Partnership. Eaten bread ........




    What costs? Bottom line is that without government supports, farming would not be competitive in Ireland. I'm not advocating the removal of supports as I think its right to support farming (especially small full time farmers who make a living from the land as against the factory farmers like O'Leary and many others who treat it like a hobby which the taxpayer very hansomely supports) which is an indigenous industry and supports many jobs in the country. However, I always find it a little hard to swallow when I hear farmers complaining about their lot and blaming other sectors for their plight. I know plenty of farmers who are doing very nicely thank you very much and visiting a mart will give you a quick insight into the vibrancy of the farming spending power. On a bright sunny day you would need shades for protection from the sun reflecting off those lovely shiny trailers and 4wds.


    Another "industry" where there's plenty of scope for creative book keeping..


  • #344
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Perhaps that is because they are responsible, along with those who borrowed money they cannot pay back? The PS are basically bystanders in this process.

    Along with your precious PS unions who always ensured that PS pay and pensions rose a lot faster that the rate of inflation should have allowed, all thanks to a spineless government who would have done anything to stay in power.
    Where's your precious benchmarking now?
    Oh, I forgot, PS workers 5 years into a recession are still getting pay rises.
    Bystanders my arse, cheerleaders more like!


  • #345
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    frankosw wrote: »
    But the state *will* povide you with the standard old age pension when you retire whether you've contributed to it or not.

    The PS contribute 15% of thier salary to thier pension..do you?

    You make it sound like you're going to be living in penury despite enjoying some of the highest state-funded subsidies in the world..there is NO such thing a poor farmer.

    Not state funded, EU funded. Another clueless post.


  • #346
    frankosw
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 809 ✭✭✭frankosw


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Oh, I forgot, PS workers 5 years into a recession are still getting pay rises.


    No they are not...they are getting increments which form part of thier pay.

    The private sector are the ones treating themselves to actual pay increases.


  • #347
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    frankosw wrote: »
    No they are not...they are getting increments which form part of thier pay.

    The private sector are the ones treating themselves to actual pay increases.

    Here we go, an increment is not a pay rise.
    Who are you people trying to kid, call a spade a spade and stop trying to muddy the waters.
    And then you show an article about bankers?, bankers? are you serious? Bankers/PS/PS unions, they're all the one to me, they all expect the state to keep paying up.


  • #348
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    frankosw wrote: »
    No they are not...they are getting increments which form part of thier pay.

    The private sector are the ones treating themselves to actual pay increases.


    So if an increment is not a pay rise and forms part of a public sector workers pay then why do they have to achieve a certain performance score to get this increase?

    Are you saying that the performance is not a factor and these pay rises are given regardless of how well a public sector work performs?


  • #349
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    frankosw wrote: »
    But the state *will* povide you with the standard old age pension when you retire whether you've contributed to it or not.

    The PS contribute 15% of thier salary to thier pension..do you?

    You make it sound like you're going to be living in penury despite enjoying some of the highest state-funded subsidies in the world..there is NO such thing a poor farmer.

    How do you make it 15%?
    Are you talking those earning over €100k or everyone?


  • #350
    frankosw
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 809 ✭✭✭frankosw


    Jaysoose wrote: »
    So if an increment is not a pay rise and forms part of a public sector workers pay then why do they have to achieve a certain performance score to get this increase?

    Are you saying that the performance is not a factor and these pay rises are given regardless of how well a public sector work performs?


    Within the worker's initial salary scale increments are awarded automatically every year and are NOT subject to performance reveiw.

    Over and above the maximum point of the salary an increment is not awarded and any further rise must be part of a promotion.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.


  • #351
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    frankosw wrote: »

    Over and above the maximum point of the salary an increment is not awarded and any further rise must be part of a promotion.
    When you may be eligible to another round of increments.
    frankosw wrote: »
    You have no idea what you're talking about.
    Increments not subject to performance review?


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    frankosw
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 809 ✭✭✭frankosw


    OMD wrote: »
    How do you make it 15%?
    Are you talking those earning over €100k or everyone?


    7.5% contribution plus the same again in Pension Levy.

    15% give or take.


    Why,how much do you think it is?


  • #353
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    frankosw wrote: »
    7.5% contribution plus the same again in Pension Levy.

    15% give or take.


    Why,how much do you think it is?

    I like your Give or take. Only those earning 50K or so pay 7.5% pension levy. Standard contribution is 6.5% not the 7.5% you say. So average pension contribution is about 13%


  • #354
    frankosw
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 809 ✭✭✭frankosw


    OMD wrote: »
    When you may be eligible to another round of increments.


    Nope. There's a moratorium on PS promotions and recruitment.
    OMD wrote: »
    Increments not subject to performance review?


    They're subject to you passing your probationary period..the PS rewards people(badly) who decide to stick the job out.


  • #355
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    frankosw wrote: »
    OMD wrote: »
    When you may be eligible to another round of increments.

    Nope. There's a moratorium on PS promotions and recruitment.




    They're subject to you passing y9our probationary period..the PS rewards people(badly) who decide to stick teh job out.

    People can be promoted still and are being promoted. Far less than before but it still happens. Increments are subject to performance review. You may be unaware of this but it is true


  • #356
    frankosw
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 809 ✭✭✭frankosw


    OMD wrote: »
    I like your Give or take. Only those earning 50K or so pay 7.5% pension levy. Standard contribution is 6.5% not the 7.5% you say. So average pension contribution is about 13%


    Average?

    There's that word again..I pay 15%.


  • #357
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    frankosw wrote: »
    Average?

    There's that word again..I pay 15%.

    Well you earn must earn €85,000 a year which is hardly representative of public sector in general


  • #358
    frankosw
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 809 ✭✭✭frankosw


    OMD wrote: »

    People can be promoted still and are being promoted. Far less than before but it still happens.

    Can you back this up please?
    OMD wrote: »
    Increments are subject to performance review. You may be unaware of this but it is true

    No they are not.

    No they are not.

    You are talking nonsenese.


  • #359
    Jaysoose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Jaysoose


    frankosw wrote: »
    Within the worker's initial salary scale increments are awarded automatically every year and are NOT subject to performance reveiw.

    Over and above the maximum point of the salary an increment is not awarded and any further rise must be part of a promotion.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    You sure about that now?


  • #360
    OMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭OMD


    frankosw wrote: »
    Can you back this up please?



    No they are not.

    No they are not.

    You are talking nonsenese.

    Yes they are.
    Yes they are.
    Yes they are.
    You are talking nonsense. So many public servants come on here totally clueless like yourself yet they spout on and on about how everybody is wrong. You do not understand increments or pensions. Increments are subject to performance review. The problem is despite this just about everyone gets their increments. People like yourself are even unaware that it is supposed to be subject to performance review. Just google it and you will find loads of links confirming it.

    This is from "A Review of the Civil Service Grading and Pay System"
    In theory salary increments are linked to satisfactory performance but in practice only in very rare cases are increases withheld.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Itchianus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭Itchianus


    frankosw wrote: »

    Can you back this up please?



    No they are not.

    No they are not.

    You are talking nonsenese.

    I'm afraid you're the one talking waffle Frank; as I write this I'm sitting here looking at the empty desk of a colleague who got promoted a few months ago. There's also limited recruitment in some areas, this is also a fact, see the recent AO competitions in several Depts for example.

    And in any areas that have PMDS in place, and isn't that supposed to be everywhere, increments are subject to performance. This had been a rating of at least 2 out of 5, but there has been talk that in the future a 3 will be required.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement