Public sector pay increase

evolving_doors · 03-05-2015 09:08PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Chartered Accountants have to spend years doing professional exams outside college, it's not a fair comparison.

Also the teaching profession is over subscribed in this country, increasing wages will only lead to more congestion making it harder for new graduates to find jobs.

A 50k base cap with bonuses for principals, vice principals etc. is more than enough.

Jeez why do you keep on about principals.
What would a typical CEO of a company of 30 staff get in the private sector (you can ignore the 700 children and parents.. not like they need managing anyway)?

Anyway... not a fair comparison for accountants!! Because they have to spend years doing professional exams
How many years are we taking about?
Do they get their pay increased for passing said exams?

Iwasfrozen · 03-05-2015 09:23PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Jeez why do you keep on about principals.
What would a typical CEO of a company of 30 staff get in the private sector (you can ignore the 700 children and parents.. not like they need managing anyway)?

Anyway... not a fair comparison for accountants!! Because they have to spend years doing professional exams
How many years are we taking about?
Do they get their pay increased for passing said exams?

What company with a CEO only has 30 staff? A more accurate comparison would be a manager. And come to think of it what private sector manager has guaranteed customers and staff paid for by the state? Your comparisons are asinine and you know it.

Many years, and yes they do get pay rises as they pass their exams. Teachers don't have to worry about professional exams and start out on 30k while most accountants start on the low 20s out of college.

I know what you're going to say "but it takes years for teachers to become full time and make 30k" and yes I appreciate that, which is why I want to cap teachers basic wages at 50k and lower entrants wages to 25k to lower demand and make it easier new entrants to find positions but you bitched about that too.

Honestly it seems you want more pay and lower class sizes without any thought to how it would affect the deficit.

evolving_doors · 03-05-2015 10:21PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What company with a CEO only has 30 staff? A more accurate comparison would be a manager.

Ah now, ok we won't split hairs over CEO/Manager/ 30 staff/700 Pupils/700 Parents. But anyway just entertain me. Is there ANY job in the private sector that would begrudge 50k to any manager of over 30 staff (we'll ignore the teenagers and parents aside if it helps)?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And come to think of it what private sector manager has guaranteed customers and staff paid for by the state? Your comparisons are asinine and you know it.

Well you still got to manage them no matter if they are public or private sector. So the comparison and question still stands. Although I get the feeling that when it boils down to it there's loads of bluster about comparisons but a lot of avoidance when it's on the table.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Many years,

How many ?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...and yes they do get pay rises as they pass their exams.

Ah like the masters allowance that teachers used to get. It would only seem fair to bring that back no? At least with the allowance you could have your masters paid off in 15 years.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Teachers don't have to worry about professional exams...

Dunno who you're talking to but any teacher I know knows damn well that you ain't going to get anywhere near a post of responsibility without a masters (and not to mention all the other training that the job requires).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... and start out on 30k .

See your contradiction below

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...while most accountants start on the low 20s out of college.

When I came out of college.... I had to go back to college to get my professional qualification (which is another 2 years unfunded now BTW).

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I know what you're going to say "but it takes years for teachers to become full time and make 30k" and yes I appreciate that,

Given the following statement I don't think you do appreciate it. So instead of a newer entrant on a portion of 30k you would put them on a portion of 25k!!!
So that's going to provide someone with a living!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

which is why I want to cap teachers basic wages at 50k

But yet you begrudge me on 43k! (And I've done loads of exams after graduating too! ... and I'm doing more now just to spite ya. By your standards i should be minted when I finish.)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

and lower entrants wages to 25k to lower demand and make it easier new entrants to find positions

Great, lower demand by having people scrounging for pennies from sub work. I presume you'd be in favour of having them working for free too if you could get away with it (jobbridge anyone!). It's not like they'd want to have a life/family or anything, shur they can live off the 3 months holidays!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

but you bitched about that too.

I aint the one bitching about being paid a decent wage commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Honestly it seems you just want more pay and lower class sizes without any thought to how that will affect the deficit.

Ah here's where we get the false dilemma. It's nice of you to offer us a choice though.

Any thoughts on the next budget?
Would you like to pay more taxes yourself then?
Or are you looking for a cut in taxes?

Iwasfrozen · 03-05-2015 10:45PM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Ah now, ok we won't split hairs over CEO/Manager/ 30 staff/700 Pupils/700 Parents. But anyway just entertain me. Is there ANY job in the private sector that would begrudge 50k to any manager of over 30 staff (we'll ignore the teenagers and parents aside if it helps)?

Don;t know, I've explicitly stated the 50k cap would be base. Not applied to bonuses like principal, vice principal bonus etc.

Well you still got to manage them no matter if they are public or private sector. So the comparison and question still stands. Although I get the feeling that when it boils down to it there's loads of bluster about comparisons but a lot of avoidance when it's on the table.

You've got to manage your staff yes, you don't have to worry about paying them, profits or staying in business.

How many ?

Depends on the person.

Ah like the masters allowance that teachers used to get. It would only seem fair to bring that back no? At least with the allowance you could have your masters paid off in 15 years.

An accountant needs to pass their exams to be a chartered accountant. I couldn't be an external auditor for example without passing those exams, they have a market value.

When a teacher earns a masters degree they don't actually bring anything new to the table, they still work in the same jobs and still teach the same material. So again, your comparison doesn't stand.

Dunno who you're talking to but any teacher I know knows damn well that you ain't going to get anywhere near a post of responsibility without a masters (and not to mention all the other training that the job requires).

It's not a requirement.

When I came out of college.... I had to go back to college to get my professional qualification (which is another 2 years unfunded now BTW).

Do you mean you came out with a BA? That's hardly a qualification in teaching now is it. :rolleyes:

Given the following statement I don't think you do appreciate it. So instead of a newer entrant on a portion of 30k you would put them on a portion of 25k!!!
So that's going to provide someone with a living!

No, no portions. Those who don't get a permanent placement will still earn the same, what cuts will do is decrease competition for placements as the job becomes less desirable.

But yet you begrudge me on 43k! (And I've done loads of exams after graduating too! ... and I'm doing more now just to spite ya. By your standards i should be minted when I finish.)

I don't begrudge anyone's wages, I believe teachers wages should be capped at 50k before bonuses, I've made this very clear.

Great, lower demand by having people scrounging for pennies from sub work. I presume you'd be in favour of having them working for free too if you could get away with it (jobbridge anyone!). It's not like they'd want to have a life/family or anything, shur they can live off the 3 months holidays!

Now you're just being emotional, cuts to pay will lower demand for teaching positions making it easier for those who accept cuts to find a full time position (because cuts won't affect the number of available positions) while keeping the wages of those who still can't find a full time position constant.

New teachers are finding it hard to find jobs because there is an over supply of new teachers relative to the demand for new teachers. So what do you do when supply and demand miss? You lower wages until the supply of new teachers falls to meet the demand of the market.

I aint the one bitching about being paid a decent wage commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Value is relative, everyone believes their job is the most important in the world. That's why we should allow market mechanisms to set wages, as I describe above.

Ah here's where we get the false dilemma. It's nice of you to offer us a choice though.

It's not a false dilemma, if you want more funds then they have to come from somewhere, assuming you don't want to cut funding in other areas of the economy you must want to increase our deficit.

Any thoughts on the next budget?
Would you like to pay more taxes yourself then?
Or are you looking for a cut in taxes?

I'd like to see our deficit turned to a surplus. I would be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for this but the economy would benefit more from cuts to government spending than increased taxation.

Geuze · 05-05-2015 11:33PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What company with a CEO only has 30 staff? A more accurate comparison would be a manager. And come to think of it what private sector manager has guaranteed customers and staff paid for by the state? Your comparisons are asinine and you know it.

Many years, and yes they do get pay rises as they pass their exams. Teachers don't have to worry about professional exams and start out on 30k while most accountants start on the low 20s out of college.

I know what you're going to say "but it takes years for teachers to become full time and make 30k" and yes I appreciate that, which is why I want to cap teachers basic wages at 50k and lower entrants wages to 25k to lower demand and make it easier new entrants to find positions but you bitched about that too.

Honestly it seems you want more pay and lower class sizes without any thought to how it would affect the deficit.

You suggest a world where newly qualified accountants aged 25 earn nearly 50k, as reported by the Chartered Accountants themselves, and where the MAX a teacher can ever earn is the same, at 50k.

Why would any ambitious, smart, young person choose teaching as a career under those conditions?

A society that values a skilled and experienced educator the same as a newly qualified Chartered Accountant is not the type of place where most people want to live.

Even capitalist employers would want teachers well-paid, so as to help produce more skilled students.

jank · 06-05-2015 01:58AM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Jeez why do you keep on about principals.
What would a typical CEO of a company of 30 staff get in the private sector (you can ignore the 700 children and parents.. not like they need managing anyway)?

Anyway... not a fair comparison for accountants!! Because they have to spend years doing professional exams
How many years are we taking about?
Do they get their pay increased for passing said exams?

You accuse the poster of making an unfair comparison then go off and do one yourself. A principal is not a CEO, they are mid level managers if anything.

evolving_doors · 06-05-2015 03:51PM

jank wrote: »

You accuse the poster of making an unfair comparison then go off and do one yourself. A principal is not a CEO, they are mid level managers if anything.

Well actually i think a Principals role is comparable to a CEO going by the definition:

a chief executive officer, the highest-ranking person in a company or other institution, ultimately responsible for taking managerial decisions.

Sure, they may be answerable to a Board of Management but CEO's are answerable to shareholders too! And the principal often has the final say on the BOM (to my knowledge!).

So if you claim they are mid-level managers then .... who is above them!!

As regards making comparisons i was referring to the poster who said it wasn't a proper comparison because ...

"Chartered Accountants have to spend years doing professional exams outside college, it's not a fair comparison. "

That was a separate argument to the poster's gripe about capping a Principals wages at 50k (plus bonuses!! whatever that means). I think it is fair to say there aren't many jobs in the private sector that would pay someone who is over 30staff (at least!) (and then 700 odd students and parents)/ plus managing the budget for wages, assigning roles and different rosters year in year out for every teacher/class group. Fighting off potential legal cases that could destroy any school etc.

Anyways I'm out of this thread, folk are trying to treat the Public Service like a private company which makes a profit (and can fold at any stage). I've more than paid my share for PRIVATE SECTOR debt (oh but we all partied didn't we!). I've kept my end of the bargain and then some, to the best of my knowledge it isn't a pay rise, it's a pay restoration under an agreement. I accept that the T&C of extra workload will never be rescinded when FEMPI is finished, and that pay terms won't be reinstated all in one go. That's fair enough I think.

But if you want to be a dog in a manger the least you could do is to eat the hay. So why don't you come over and join us in the public sector, the grass is obviously greener, you'd be a fool to stay where you are going by your own 'gravy train' logic.

Kermit.de.frog · 07-05-2015 01:13AM

This is the wrong thing to do. It's so stupid that a country that has just come out of a devastating economic crisis goes back to set up another crisis. We can not afford this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/public-service-workers-set-for-800-windfall-each-1.2202694?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fpublic-service-workers-set-for-800-windfall-each-1.2202694

Public service workers set for €800 windfall each
Government to spend €250m to €300m (of our money) restoring pay to 300,000 public workers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbO7czzIu_o

Arsemageddon · 07-05-2015 01:16AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is the wrong thing to do. It's so stupid that a country that has just come out of a devastating economic crisis goes back to set up another crisis. We can not afford this.

Business as usual so. Did you really expect anything else?

Cold War Kid · 07-05-2015 01:17AM

Good for them. I'll keep an eye out for public sector jobs and apply for any I think I'd suit.

Kermit.de.frog · 07-05-2015 01:25AM

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Business as usual so. Did you really expect anything else?

No. I had hoped that the trauma of the crisis would instill a bit of common sense and self control. This stuff damages the competitive position of the country and puts private sector jobs at risk and will prevent other investment and that will put the economy at risk.

The Backwards Man · 07-05-2015 01:28AM

Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals, I get my back into my living.

kneemos · 07-05-2015 01:30AM

Still borrowing 6 billion per year.

Better off hiring a few more doctors or open a ward or two.

Arsemageddon · 07-05-2015 01:30AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No. I had hoped that the trauma of the crisis would instill a bit of common sense and self control. This stuff damages the competitive position of the country and puts private sector jobs at risk and will prevent other investment and that will put the economy at risk.

Not trying to get a rise out of you here but I have to say that's a bit naïve.

On the bright side you'll have all the potholes round your way fixed in the very near future.

silverfeather · 07-05-2015 01:32AM

If it's going to improve our services good. People forget a lot of workers had hours cut and we the public suffered.

Fr_Dougal · 07-05-2015 01:32AM

€800 per PS vote in d'election.

Dozer Dave · 07-05-2015 01:33AM

Whats the weather like tomorrow?

The Backwards Man · 07-05-2015 01:46AM

Dozer Dave wrote: »

Whats the weather like tomorrow?

There's an Eminence Front sweeping across the country

Dozer Dave · 07-05-2015 01:48AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

There's an Eminence Front sweeping across the country

I was planning second cut silage.

silverfeather · 07-05-2015 01:48AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

There's an Eminence Front sweeping across the country

The sun shines
And people forget
They spray flies as the speedboat glides
And people forget
Forget they're hiding
The girls smile
And people forget
The snow packs as the skier tracks
And people forget
Forget they're hiding.

Behind an eminence front
Eminence front - It's a put on.
It's Eminence front
It's Eminence front - It's a put on.
An Eminence front
Eminence front - It's a put on.
Eminence front
It's Eminence front
It's Eminence front - It's a put on.
It's a put on
It's a put on
It's a put on

The Backwards Man · 07-05-2015 01:51AM

Dozer Dave wrote: »

I was planning second cut silage.

Was a false summer last year too, better be sure we Won't Be Fooled Again

silverfeather · 07-05-2015 01:56AM

You've lost me.

The Backwards Man · 07-05-2015 01:56AM

silverfeather wrote: »

You've lost me.

I Can't Explain

silverfeather · 07-05-2015 01:58AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I Can't Explain

ah well....no worries

Turtwig · 07-05-2015 01:58AM

Restoring pay shouldn't be priority; hiring more staff should be.

The Backwards Man · 07-05-2015 01:59AM

Turtwig wrote: »

; hiring more staff

Substitute?

silverfeather · 07-05-2015 01:59AM

Turtwig wrote: »

Restoring pay shouldn't be priority; hiring more staff should be.

There would be more striking I would bet if they had not restored pay.

Cookie_Monster · 07-05-2015 02:04AM

The election won't win itself you know.

jank · 07-05-2015 02:05AM

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Well actually i think a Principals role is comparable to a CEO going by the definition:

a chief executive officer, the highest-ranking person in a company or other institution, ultimately responsible for taking managerial decisions.

Sure, they may be answerable to a Board of Management but CEO's are answerable to shareholders too! And the principal often has the final say on the BOM (to my knowledge!).

So if you claim they are mid-level managers then .... who is above them!!

As regards making comparisons i was referring to the poster who said it wasn't a proper comparison because ...

"Chartered Accountants have to spend years doing professional exams outside college, it's not a fair comparison. "

That was a separate argument to the poster's gripe about capping a Principals wages at 50k (plus bonuses!! whatever that means). I think it is fair to say there aren't many jobs in the private sector that would pay someone who is over 30staff (at least!) (and then 700 odd students and parents)/ plus managing the budget for wages, assigning roles and different rosters year in year out for every teacher/class group. Fighting off potential legal cases that could destroy any school etc.

Anyways I'm out of this thread, folk are trying to treat the Public Service like a private company which makes a profit (and can fold at any stage). I've more than paid my share for PRIVATE SECTOR debt (oh but we all partied didn't we!). I've kept my end of the bargain and then some, to the best of my knowledge it isn't a pay rise, it's a pay restoration under an agreement. I accept that the T&C of extra workload will never be rescinded when FEMPI is finished, and that pay terms won't be reinstated all in one go. That's fair enough I think.

But if you want to be a dog in a manger the least you could do is to eat the hay. So why don't you come over and join us in the public sector, the grass is obviously greener, you'd be a fool to stay where you are going by your own 'gravy train' logic.

All great and all but principals do not have any say in the curriculum that a teacher teaches nor do they have a say in what remuneration a teacher receives. Most of what happens in school is dictated to by Dept. of Education guidelines and regulations. The principal is primarily there to make sure these guidelines are followed and to keep track of things, report to the board of management and make sure the dept. is happy if/when inspectors are called out. Middle management it is, nothing more nothing less.

The Backwards Man · 07-05-2015 02:07AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The election won't but itself you know.

No one knows what it's like to be the bad man

Public sector pay increase

Comments