Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

greenoverred · 01-03-2013 08:57PM

AlexisM wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of averages but as you've gone there...

Dan O’Brien has a good piece in the Irish Times today (basically about how the self-interest is keeping young people unemployed and out of the PS). http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2013/0301/1224330653975.html

“The average gross pay packet in the public sector* was €63,305 last year, down by €1,300 from the peak registered in 2009. But it remains well up on the €58,170 paid in 2007 just as the bubble burst. In 2002, when the bubble began to inflate, the average public sector pay packet stood at €42,035. Even allowing for inflation (22 per cent) in the decade to 2012, average real pay is still one-third above 2002.”

No employer owes any employee a living. Salaries went up because the State thought it was rich and could afford to dispense largesse to its workers; turns out it wasn’t rich after all so at least some of the largesse has to be clawed back (although nowhere near all/enough according to the IT piece). It’s not pleasant having to reverse one’s standard of living but the PS employer just doesn’t have the money to keep paying what it thought it could and what it gave in false circumstances.

Something not adding up with these figures. If only 82% of public sector workers are earning less then €60,000 how in the name of god can the average wage be €63,305. If that the case the other 18% must be really minting it.

And yet most of that 18% are only getting a 5.5% - 7% cut in the CPA2 whilst Gardai who the Dep. of Justice claim are getting €56,000 and nurses are getting at minimum an 8% cut.

woodoo · 01-03-2013 08:58PM

ardmacha wrote: »

This article and the people who post it are deliberately spreading misinformation, as these figures do not include the pension levy. Anyone who deliberately ignores something whose existence is widely known and in the public domain has no credibility whatsoever.

He was on Vincent Browne saying that it may not be good for the economy to take the 1 billion out of the economy at this time. Now that we may be seeing an improvement in the job numbers.

woodoo · 01-03-2013 09:01PM

creedp wrote: »

For comparison using CSO average wekly figures

PS av wage 2002/2012 €714.89/€918.99 = Increase of 128%

Industry Av weekly wage 2002/2012 €522.69/€803.98 = 154%

Banking/Insurance Av weekly wage 2002/2012 €679.78/€983.24 = 145% increase.

Your percentages are way off. Its 28%, 54% and 45%

Godge · 01-03-2013 09:14PM

beeno67 wrote: »

Why would you take out the pension levy. Public sector pension has to be funded some way (just like private sector). The bare 5% pension contribution (plus 1.5% spouse & children) would never be sufficient to fund the average public sector pension so you must either include the levy or else allow for the pension some other way. The average pension in public sector is about €28,000 a year. Don't forget the lump sum as well. .

I took out the pension levy because there isn't a reputable commentator in the whole country who calls it anything other than a pay cut.

I also took out the pensioners as well, but you didn't mention that.

beeno67 wrote: »

I find it fascinating that public sector numbers have fallen 3.3% in last 5 years. Shows the nonsense of public sector workers saying they are doing extra work because of less staff. Maybe in some areas but clearly not across the board especially when so many people are saying services have dis improved dramatically.

Where did you get the ridiculously low figure of 3.3%? It is more like 10%.

Godge · 01-03-2013 09:16PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

Call it what you want, gross is what was mentioned in the article which means before any deductions. If you can point to another dictionary which states otherwise please do.

Again what do these have to do in relation to a discussion about gross wage?

Not only did the numbers in the article include the pension levy, they also included the pension bill, without including the pensioners! Dan O'Brien joins the ranks of economists who can't count.

Godge · 01-03-2013 09:21PM

beeno67 wrote: »

You implied the figures were completely distorted because they failed to include pension levy. That is not true. Anyway pension costs have increased in last 10 years for everyone

Also if those who are better off reduced their wages to 2007 levels plus inflation there would be no need for cuts to other wages in public sector.

Head The Wall wrote: »

How is it disinformation? In the very first line he uses the word gross, its you that's wrong here

beeno67 wrote: »

So wages doubling, after inflation, pay cuts and pension levy. Yet they cannot take more pain????

All of these statements are factually incorrect. I don't mind disagreeing with people who have different opinions but let us get the facts right first.

The figures that O'Brien used included the pension bill paid to pensioners. So he divided the wage bill plus the pension levy plus the pension payments by the number of public servants and claimed that this was the average salary!!!! It is embarrassing for him that he got it so wrong but it is laughable and more for people to be quoting him and defending him when his errors have been pointed out several times in this thread.

creedp · 01-03-2013 10:15PM

woodoo wrote: »

Your percentages are way off. Its 28%, 54% and 45%

Thanks. I've only spotted that now and edited. As I said above I must have been lacking caffeine! Nearly as bad as O'Briens mess up!!

creedp · 01-03-2013 10:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Where did you get the ridiculously low figure of 3.3%? It is more like 10%.

Well according to the CSO PS numbers (excluding temporary census staff) were 364.5k in Qtr 2 2008 and 330.2k in Qtr 2012 - a reduction of 34k (9.4%). The reduction in the 12 months from Q2 2011 - Q2 2012 was 17.6 (5%)

Figerty · 02-03-2013 09:13AM

There have been a few, I know that Trinity lost a case lately where they had to pay redundancies when contracts were terminated.

These are small numbers, but there have been redundancies. You hear of a big redundancy in the PS. It doesn't happen anywhere in a stable democracy.

The numbers in the PS have been steadily decreasing over the last few years by government order.... it's called the head count.

Most public PS are on contract now... when the contract ends you are out if it isn't extended. NO REDUNDANCY paid in these cases.

This recsession has been hard on lots of people on both sides of the debate. Half my family are PS, the other half are public. All of us have taken pay cuts, but the private sector part have taken far less. Luckily for them they didn't take the bait and get sucked into the construction sector.

antoobrien wrote: »

Name a single PS worker that was made redundant (as opposed to being redeployed) because there was no work for them. My brother eventually lost his job as a plumber - they company weren't dependent on building sites but that created problems in that there were more than enough plumbers going around to do the non site work.

He managed to find a (non construction) job after less than a year, but his pay has been cut - forcibly by about about 40%, which is actually a lucky story in the construction sector - many of whom are still unemployed so have faced bigger paycuts.

Has anybody in the PS faced those levels of cuts?

Are they - I've seen no evidence of this in my wages, or any member of my family (6 different employers so by the law of averages one of us should see something).

The average wage is being driven up by the new high paying jobs, e.g. all those software jobs, coming online, not by increases in pay for people already in jobs.

The same thing would happen if for example a new Ministry of IT was created (and staffed by new people) to supply IT services to the PS as the workers would be paid higher than the PS average.

kippy · 02-03-2013 09:53AM

People dont seem to realise that redundancies arent as cost neutral an option for the state as it is for private employers.

AlexisM · 02-03-2013 11:42AM

Godge wrote: »

I took out the pension levy because there isn't a reputable commentator in the whole country who calls it anything other than a pay cut.

So we're all agreed it's a paycut? Because there is often an element of double-counting by PS workers in forums such as these: 'the pension levy means I've had a paycut' AND 'the pension levy means I'm contributing hugely to my pension'. It's one or the other. If it's merely a disguised paycut, then maybe we should look again at whether PS workers contribute enough to their pensions.

beeno67 · 02-03-2013 01:28PM

Godge wrote: »

Where did you get the ridiculously low figure of 3.3%? It is more like 10%.

From the figures you supplied. Page 14
Public Service 2007 304,511
2012 294,404
Drop 3.3%
I should add that figures in 2007 were 3% higher than 2006 according to the same figures you supplied so in reality public sector numbers are unchanged in the 6 year period 2006-2012

Later on however it does go on to use different figures and says
2007 Public sector numbers excluding pensioners = 269,668
2012 Public sector numbers excluding pensioners = 264,421
This is a drop of 5247 or 1.95%. I used the higher fiures so people wouldn't complain.

beeno67 · 02-03-2013 01:46PM

Godge wrote: »

All of these statements are factually incorrect. I don't mind disagreeing with people who have different opinions but let us get the facts right first.

The figures that O'Brien used included the pension bill paid to pensioners. So he divided the wage bill plus the pension levy plus the pension payments by the number of public servants and claimed that this was the average salary!!!! It is embarrassing for him that he got it so wrong but it is laughable and more for people to be quoting him and defending him when his errors have been pointed out several times in this thread.

You say these statements are factually incorrect:

[/QUOTE]You implied the figures were completely distorted because they failed to include pension levy. That is not true. Anyway pension costs have increased in last 10 years for everyone

Also if those who are better off reduced their wages to 2007 levels plus inflation there would be no need for cuts to other wages in public sector.[/QUOTE]

Which statements are incorrect?
The pension levy was about 6% on average. Whether you include this figure or not it does not "completely distort" the figures. How could it have a grossly distorting effect on figures taken over a 5 year period. Include it or not it doesnt change the overall argument that on average public sector pay has not fallen in 5 years.

Pension costs have increased for everyone over the last 5 years. Annuity yields have plummeted meaning you need a much greater pension pot now to provide the equivalent pension it would have 5 years ago. I presume you are not saying this is factually incorrect.

Finally my last point is also correct as wages are now higher (or at least have not fallen) over the five years, a linking of wages to inflation 5 years ago would have saved as much money (give or take a percent or so). Remember we had a period of deflation.

OMD · 02-03-2013 04:33PM

creedp wrote: »

For comparison using CSO average wekly figures

PS av wage 2002/2012 €714.89/€918.99 = Increase of 28%

Industry Av weekly wage 2002/2012 €522.69/€803.98 = 54%

Banking/Insurance Av weekly wage 2002/2012 €679.78/€983.24 = 45% increase.

Edit I made a right mess of that .. must have been lacking cafenine - overstated increases by 100%!!

Can you link your source for these figures please? I can't seem to find them on CSO site. Thanks.

sarumite · 02-03-2013 05:41PM

kippy wrote: »

People dont seem to realise that redundancies arent as cost neutral an option for the state as it is for private employers.

Its not always just about cost. If a person cannot or refuses redeployment, then they are occupying a job that doesn't necessarily need to be performed. Considering we currently have a recruitment embargo, the government should have the flexibility to make redundancies where necessary so that they are not so limited in other area where additional staff would be far more beneficial.

OMD · 02-03-2013 05:52PM

Godge wrote: »

But the paybill is nowhere near 18 bn (even gross).

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2007-20121.pdf

If you add the pensions and paybill and treat them as gross, then you might get your figure but then you are including all the pensioners and saying that the pension levy is not a pay cut when everyone except a handful of boards.ie posters say that it is.

The net pay bill (i.e. net of pension levy, but not net of taxes, hope you understand the difference) is 14.402 bn. Dividing by your number of employees gives an average salary of €49,515.

If you then realise that the numbers are calculated on a WTE basis and therefore allow for the increased actual number of employees, then the average salary is probably in or around 47k as calculated by the CSO. But then, why let reality get in the way of Dan O'Brien's rant?

Want to rethink your figures a bit there? According to that link €18,413 million is cost of pay and pensions. Allow 2.5 billion for pensions brings the figure down to 15.9 billion. Divide by number of employees 264,421 gives you an average gross pay of €60,131. thus average full time public sector worker earns over €60k a year. you shouldn't exclude pension levy as pensions cost money but even if you do the average pension levy is not €11,400

Gumbo · 02-03-2013 06:04PM

OMD wrote: »

Want to rethink your figures a bit there? According to that link €18,413 million is cost of pay and pensions. Allow 2.5 billion for pensions brings the figure down to 15.9 billion. Divide by number of employees 264,421 gives you an average gross pay of €60,131. thus average full time public sector worker earns over €60k a year. you shouldn't exclude pension levy as pensions cost money but even if you do the average pension levy is not €11,400

But doesn't the toal pay bil include civil and public servants?
So why divide by only 264,421?

OP to correction if I'm wrong.
Also, did I hear that the total PS pay bill includes TD pay too?

OMD · 02-03-2013 08:10PM

kceire wrote: »

But doesn't the toal pay bil include civil and public servants?
So why divide by only 264,421?

OP to correction if I'm wrong.
Also, did I hear that the total PS pay bill includes TD pay too?

No the pay does not include all PS workers. The pension payments they refer too though do apply to all PS pensioners. They are mixing up apples and oranges (which the poster conveniently ignored). It is the reason why they don't just come out with a figure for pay alone. They actually don't have it from the figures they gave.

A lot of other problems with this data like what date are figures for employment levels based? They say after 2009 it is 31st December but obviously this is not the case for 2012 as the data was published in November. The actual figure for average PS pay is almost certainly higher than the figure I gave from looking at their data.

creedp · 02-03-2013 11:07PM

OMD wrote: »

Can you link your source for these figures please? I can't seem to find them on CSO site. Thanks.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2002/indearn_q42002.pdf

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2002/banking_dec2002.pdf

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2002/psempearn_q42002.pdf

OMD · 02-03-2013 11:24PM

creedp wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2002/indearn_q42002.pdf

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2002/banking_dec2002.pdf

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2002/psempearn_q42002.pdf

It was the public sector 2002 and 2012 I was interested in. Based on the figures you supplied (although they exclude health) the rise by 2012 is a lot more than 28%.

creedp · 02-03-2013 11:27PM

OMD wrote: »

Want to rethink your figures a bit there? According to that link €18,413 million is cost of pay and pensions. Allow 2.5 billion for pensions brings the figure down to 15.9 billion. Divide by number of employees 264,421 gives you an average gross pay of €60,131. thus average full time public sector worker earns over €60k a year. you shouldn't exclude pension levy as pensions cost money but even if you do the average pension levy is not €11,400

Page 14 of that report refers to whole time equivalents. The CSO reports that there were 337.1k PS in 1st Qtr 2012 - page 16 of link below

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q42012.pdf

creedp · 02-03-2013 11:34PM

OMD wrote: »

It was the public sector 2002 and 2012 I was interested in. Based on the figures you supplied (although they exclude health) the rise by 2012 is a lot more than 28%.

OK what is the figure?

OMD · 02-03-2013 11:37PM

creedp wrote: »

OK what is the figure?

I don't know. You gave the figures. I asked you for the link. I'm still asking for the link.

OMD · 02-03-2013 11:39PM

creedp wrote: »

Page 14 of that report refers to whole time equivalents. The CSO reports that there were 337.1k PS in 1st Qtr 2012 - page 16 of link below

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts_q42012.pdf

Well obviously for pay, whole time equivalents is the relevant figure. It is the amount a full time worker earns.

creedp · 02-03-2013 11:40PM

OMD wrote: »

I don't know. You gave the figures. I asked you for the link. I'm still asking for the link.

You got the 2002 link (as you say it excludes health) so are you saying you can't find the 2012 figure for the PS on the CSO website?

Riskymove · 03-03-2013 12:12PM

antoobrien wrote: »

Do they really don't add up do they.:rolleyes:

no they don't - if only 20% of the PS earn over €65k, how can the average possibly be over €60k

his figures seem to be on the entire pay bill which includes more than core pay

If you wish to examine such figures and compare to the private sector then you have to produce comparable figures and include things like OT, bonuses, directors payments etc in coming to a new average industrial wage

even if they are not directly comaprable, at least the CSO produce figures based on similar methodology

OMD · 03-03-2013 12:20PM

Riskymove wrote: »

no they don't - if only 20% of the PS earn over €65k, how can the average possibly be over €60k

his figures seem to be on the entire pay bill which includes more than core pay

If you wish to examine such figures and compare to the private sector then you have to produce comparable figures and include things like OT, bonuses, directors payments etc in coming to a new average industrial wage

even if they are not directly comaprable, at least the CSO produce figures based on similar methodology

Why do you need to compare it with private sector?

Anyway if 20% earn over 65k surely it makes sense that the average can be above 60k.

creedp · 03-03-2013 06:15PM

OMD wrote: »

Well obviously for pay, whole time equivalents is the relevant figure. It is the amount a full time worker earns.

Yes dividing the total pay bill (which includes employers PRSI) by the WTE will give you the average cost (including employers PRSI) per WTE. This is however not the same as the average salary earned by public servants.

Godge · 03-03-2013 08:22PM

OMD wrote: »

Want to rethink your figures a bit there? According to that link €18,413 million is cost of pay and pensions. Allow 2.5 billion for pensions brings the figure down to 15.9 billion. Divide by number of employees 264,421 gives you an average gross pay of €60,131. thus average full time public sector worker earns over €60k a year. you shouldn't exclude pension levy as pensions cost money but even if you do the average pension levy is not €11,400

Nope, definitely do not want to rethink my figures. I took the website that Dan O'Brien used (to ridiculously calculate average of 60k) and showed how the real figures put you in spitting distance of the CSO figure.

So my analysis of the Department of Public Expenditure figures is independently verified by the CSO having roughly the same figure while you and Dan O'Brien have the same figure.

I will stick with the CSO and the DPR figures, thank you very much.

noodler · 03-03-2013 10:46PM

It seems pretty clear that the wages figures on the DPER database website is wrong.

It clearly says 18bn which is at odds with the more regularly published figures.

Taking out the pension levy though is pretty disingenous again Godge.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments