offered a job in public service, should i take?

djsim101 · 24-07-2015 08:32AM

Thanks all, i dont like doing that , but i might go back and tell them due to salary difference i am unable to take the job.

Propably regret this later down the line but that is life, making silly mistskes and learning from them :-)

24-07-2015 08:33AM

doncarlos wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

In part. In the IT sector there, of the PS, there can be very little opportunity to move around as people stay in roles for decades. They are heavily scaling back their investment in a lot of the PS (has OP said which part of PS as it is frikken huge).

Vast sections of the PS are, at the moment, unofficially moving their ICT depts over to private contractors under the guise of temporary replacements of permanent roles. I have worked with people in such temporary roles for over 5 years.

Addle · 24-07-2015 08:37AM

ECO_Mental wrote:

Say that to the lads unblocking drains at three in the morning on a stormy January night with trucks flying past you......

Have they applied for any of the recent open competitions?

ECO_Mental · 24-07-2015 08:40AM

Addle wrote: »

Have they applied for any of the recent open competitions?

Heh!... Maybe they did

JaCrispy · 24-07-2015 08:54AM

Bassfish wrote: »

You can't do that, salaries for all public sector jobs are set nationally and as a new entrant, you start on the first point of the the scale. Wouldn't matter if he was Bill Gates, the salary scale is non negotiable.

That is not true. I started on point 3 of my scale and another person in my office started on point 10 - neither of us were in public sector jobs previously. Early 2000s but I don't think the rules have changed.

I didn't negotiate but the person who went onto point 10 dug their heels in and got what they wanted.

kippy · 24-07-2015 08:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet in the few months that I worked in conjunction with them I saw them working non stop over the weekend to fix server issues, on several occasions, and also often working late into the night.

Same here, althought I am sure there are staff with the attitude that the poster points out, in general I've seen the same standards adhered to as anywhere else.

kippy · 24-07-2015 08:58AM

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Doesn't work that way in the PS. Rules are rules.... Another PS disadvantage you can't go to your boss and argue for a pay rise just because you are doing a brilliant job

That's one major downside that the OP needs to take into consideration as well.

The won't offer you a higher starting salary than you've already been offered. Hardball or not.

ECO_Mental · 24-07-2015 09:04AM

JaCrispy wrote: »

That is not true. I started on point 3 of my scale and another person in my office started on point 10 - neither of us were in public sector jobs previously. Early 2000s but I don't think the rules have changed.

I didn't negotiate but the person who went onto point 10 dug their heels in and got what they wanted.

Way different times they couldn't get anybody to join the PS in the early 2000's in the middle of the boom. They were recruiting in South Africa for engineers as far as I know. I did have to dely joining for a month to enable me to have another years experience in the private sector then I went up one point on the scale. But that was one point.

I think with haddinton road and all the new rules that all that is gone All new entrants start at that bottom

The Bishop Basher · 24-07-2015 09:11AM

doncarlos wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

I can only offer my personal opinion based on my own experience.

I've worked with many incredibly talented and dedicated people from the PS over the years but their true ability and entrepreneurial spirit always seems to be stifled by poor management and inflexible and archaic work practices.

I've often had discussions with them about it and the reason they stay is invariably job security.

That's fine if job security is your main priority.

Different strokes and all that.....

BabySlam · 24-07-2015 09:14AM

Take the job. Your experience in the public sector will then count FOR you when you go for a higher paid PS job. Work out the pay per hour if you have any doubts. Remember you may qualify for family supplement for the first year or two - then you will have a steady incremental pay increase every year which is to reflect your PS years of experience.

In addition, you will have job security. This means you may earn less per week than a private sector worker but you will never be laid off/redundant etc.

I urge you to take it and try it. At worst you can re-apply for private sector but you will be deciding from experience and not from often uninformed commentary. I myself have worked in both sectors.

ECO_Mental · 24-07-2015 09:24AM

djsim101 wrote: »

Thanks all, i dont like doing that , but i might go back and tell them due to salary difference i am unable to take the job.

Propably regret this later down the line but that is life, making silly mistskes and learning from them :-)

This of the most last post as I have to go to work, but this is not going to be a silly mistake. Perm jobs in the PS rarely come up now and to even be offered one rarer again. If you can't afford it then you can't, but if you are planning to have kids or have them then you seriously have to consider the job.

Being able to drop your kids to school with flexitime work etc etc you cannot buy that and the job security with the peace of mind. Being able to take a day off without a problem if your child is sick again you can't buy that flexibly.

Its about work life balance and in the PS it couldn't be better.

Good luck

dbop2003 · 24-07-2015 09:41AM

Take it!!!

Job security, pension, stability, maternity (if female) and sick leave as well as parental leave... Pros outweigh the cons. Ask the HR department if there is any way to increase the placing on salary scale. Provide them with evidence of courses, your current job descriptions, as well as something from your current employer about your current role. This might help them take your current experience into consideration. You also need to think about realistically how much of a pay cut you are willing to take. If you are seriously thinking of working in the PS then you will need to take a pay cut of some description.

doncarlos · 24-07-2015 09:43AM

Swanner wrote: »

I can only offer my personal opinion based on my own experience.

I've worked with many incredibly talented and dedicated people from the PS over the years but their true ability and entrepreneurial spirit always seems to be stifled by poor management and inflexible and archaic work practices.

I've often had discussions with them about it and the reason they stay is invariably job security.

That's fine if job security is your main priority.

Different strokes and all that.....

But you really believe that IT staff can skip out the door at 5pm if systems are down? This doesn't happen anywhere private or public sector.

kippy · 24-07-2015 09:47AM

doncarlos wrote: »

But you really believe that IT staff can skip out the door at 5pm if systems are down? This doesn't happen anywhere private or public sector.

TBF to the poster I have seen a VERY small number of staff with this attitude. And TBF I've seen it in both sectors. There's usually someone else there to take on the issue.

johnb25 · 24-07-2015 10:05AM

OP,

I would take the job.
As others have pointed out, it offers better work-life balance. Private sector is good while you are making progress in your career, but if things level out, balance may become more important.
Also, if it turns out that the PS job is not overly-demanding, and the hours are stable, you may be able to supplement your income with some private work. This would give you added interest, additional income for hard work etc.
Ultimately you work to live...

The Bishop Basher · 24-07-2015 10:07AM

doncarlos wrote: »

But you really believe that IT staff can skip out the door at 5pm if systems are down? This doesn't happen anywhere private or public sector.

I've witnessed it. Critical systems down. On standby ready to work through the weekend to get them back online only to be told the staff are finishing up and will reconvene on Monday.

Hard to believe I know and maybe i've just been incredibly unlucky with the Depts i've interacted with but it has happened a couple of times.

_Kaiser_ · 24-07-2015 10:36AM

Swanner wrote: »

I've witnessed it. Critical systems down. On standby ready to work through the weekend to get them back online only to be told the staff are finishing up and will reconvene on Monday.

Hard to believe I know and maybe i've just been incredibly unlucky with the Depts i've interacted with but it has happened a couple of times.

In my own experience (former PS worker for a while too), while what I was managing wasn't quite "bank critical" stuff, downtime or issues did have a significant impact on the organisation so whatever needed to be done got done regardless. I suppose my situation was bit different in that I was the IT Manager and came from a MNC background.

I was lucky in that I had pretty much complete control of my section so was able to implement a lot of new technologies and processes to improve things so it was both challenging and getting to play with the latest stuff.

I'd echo the comments above OP, I'd be inclined to take it IF it's a full time permanent role. The issue I had was that I was on a FTC as there was no permanent post for "IT Manager" as such and so when the cull started in 2009, I and many of the Admin staff were let go.

Were it not for that I might still be there.

testaccount123 · 24-07-2015 10:44AM

doncarlos wrote: »

But you really believe that IT staff can skip out the door at 5pm if systems are down? This doesn't happen anywhere private or public sector.

Ive contracted into the PS on and off for the last few years and seen it happen also.

OP, bear in mind that its a very, very different work environment in the PS. Things happen with glacial slowness - everything from day to day work to career progression. People seem to spend YEARS in the same role and they hire consultants for everything the least bit challenging or which carries ANY risk. There is a culture of 'cover your own arse first', the staff seem to spend their time simply managing contractors and consultants who are paid multiples of what they are (in fact you'll often wonder why the PS IT staff are there at all - why not just use a managed service instead of having every meeting stuffed with the PS IT staff and all the different vendors they have hired to do the jobs they should be doing in the first place?). Finally, the staff are totally different from what you will find in any other IT organisation - the last project I worked on (a huge, multi million euro virtual infrastructure rollout) was managed on the PS side exclusively by middle-aged women from non-technical backgrounds, presumably who were moved into the roles due to the PS' bizarre promotion system. Dont expect to be rocking in to the office to discuss the latest in geekdom in other words.

It depends what you want really, if you want to progress in IT and be on the bleeding edge of tech i'd give it a wide berth. If you want a stress free handy number I'd be all over it.

griffin100 · 24-07-2015 10:49AM

One thing you need to consider is where in the PS the job is. The PS is a huge sector with varying types of work place and working environment. I'm a PS worker in an environment that is pleasant to work in, offers career development and I work with a good bunch of people. I know friends who work in other areas of the PS which are like the stereotypical view of the PS with poor mangers, heavy union control, lifers with no ambition or real work ethic, etc.

Personally I would give it serious thought. The PS can be a great place to work, but in saying that there are areas I don't think I'd like to work in - the HSE and the civil service spring to mind.

Perhaps you spend 6-12 months there, earn less money, decide it's not for you but do some further training whilst your there at their expense and get back into the public sector at a time when jobs are increasing.

Yeboah · 24-07-2015 10:58AM

johnb25 wrote:

I would take the job. As others have pointed out, it offers better work-life balance. Private sector is good while you are making progress in your career, but if things level out, balance may become more important. Also, if it turns out that the PS job is not overly-demanding, and the hours are stable, you may be able to supplement your income with some private work. This would give you added interest, additional income for hard work etc. Ultimately you work to live...

this post x 1000 imo

I left a big private sector company to take a position in the civil service. Almost 10 years later I can safely say it was best decision I could have made. At the time people thought I was mad as country was "booming".

My advice would be go for it !!!

Drumpot · 24-07-2015 11:02AM

Just to make a point on the pension side of things. There is simply no comparison when it comes to the public service pensions.

I see many people on these forums incorrectly post assumptions about it. As a pensions adviser i understand exactly how much more beneficial it is when you factor in how little is paid into it in comparison to what is paid out.

I help a private company do up pension quoted for people considering moving from public service roles to private. In most cases they are being offered a significant pay increase but the deal stalls on the pension.

Those who are working in the public service don't value it until it's threatened. The comparable cost to directly replace it in the private sector is crazy. You have to contribute so much more and take huge risks to grow the fund.

It's just annoying that unions and random people dismiss the benefits of the pension without any understanding of its true value

kippy · 24-07-2015 11:09AM

Drumpot wrote: »

Just to make a point on the pension side of things. There is simply no comparison when it comes to the public service pensions.

I see many people on these forums incorrectly post assumptions about it. As a pensions adviser i understand exactly how much more beneficial it is when you factor in how little is paid into it in comparison to what is paid out.

I help a private company do up pension quoted for people considering moving from public service roles to private. In most cases they are being offered a significant pay increase but the deal stalls on the pension.

Those who are working in the public service don't value it until it's threatened. The comparable cost to directly replace it in the private sector is crazy. You have to contribute so much more and take huge risks to grow the fund.

It's just annoying that unions and random people dismiss the benefits of the pension without any understanding of its true value

It has a value, no doubt, but for "new" starters as the OP will be, the pension value is significantly less than that of existing staff (pre 2011 I think) as the pension itself is worked out on a different basis (career average earnings as opposed to last 3 years of work average earnings)
I'd also point out that the pension itself for post 94 people is made up of your COAP (PAYE pension) to get the final value. Not your occupational pension + the COAP. It's worth bearing that in mind.
Finally, with the way things are and the problems to hit this country in the coming years in relation to pensions in general, I'd suggest a lot of that is up for discussion and amendments.

Its not the primary reason I'd be joining the PS in the current environment or close to it to be honest.

Drumpot · 24-07-2015 11:29AM

kippy wrote: »

It has a value, no doubt, but for "new" starters as the OP will be, the pension value is significantly less than that of existing staff (pre 2011 I think) as the pension itself is worked out on a different basis (career average earnings as opposed to last 3 years of work average earnings)
I'd also point out that the pension itself for post 94 people is made up of your COAP (PAYE pension) to get the final value. Not your occupational pension + the COAP. It's worth bearing that in mind.
Finally, with the way things are and the problems to hit this country in the coming years in relation to pensions in general, I'd suggest a lot of that is up for discussion and amendments.

Its not the primary reason I'd be joining the PS in the current environment or close to it to be honest.

It suggesting that somebody should take a job based on the Pension alone. I was only trying to highlight that it is, in my experience, more valuable then people understand or care to admit.

Given the volatility of the markets, having a guaranteed pension is more valuable then having a fluctuating DC one. While the newer PS pensions on paper may be less then the more generous older ones, there really is no substitute for a guaranteed pension.

kippy · 24-07-2015 11:34AM

Drumpot wrote: »

It suggesting that somebody should take a job based on the Pension alone. I was only trying to highlight that it is, in my experience, more valuable then people understand or care to admit.

It depends on what people you are talking about and their knowledge of the various ins and out of the public sector pension.

There are some in the private sector who think it's a guilt edged, gold plated pension scheme when the reality is, it depends very much on your circumstances, wages, when you joined etc.
If you started at the right time, played you cards right promotionally, managed to get a COAP on top of it then you would no doubt take out far more than you ever put in, but if you are joining now and expect to get the same benefits when you retire, you are fooling yourself as the game has changed and will no doubt change again in future due to the issues facing pensions here.
You might have a guaranteed pension at the end of your career, however the amount you put into it and the actual makeup of what the final pension will be is not guaranteed as we have seen.

Drumpot · 24-07-2015 11:50AM

kippy wrote: »

It depends on what people you are talking about and their knowledge of the various ins and out of the public sector pension.

There are some in the private sector who think it's a guilt edged, gold plated pension scheme when the reality is, it depends very much on your circumstances, wages, when you joined etc.
If you started at the right time, played you cards right promotionally, managed to get a COAP on top of it then you would no doubt take out far more than you ever put in, but if you are joining now and expect to get the same benefits when you retire, you are fooling yourself as the game has changed and will no doubt change again in future due to the issues facing pensions here.
You might have a guaranteed pension at the end of your career, however the amount you put into it and the actual makeup of what the final pension will be is not guaranteed as we have seen.

I will believe that when I actually see it. I work mainly with people on the health side of the PS and Private sector and I haven't seen an example yet where a public servant has been better off in a private sector pension arrangement.

The newer pension arrangements are inferior to the older ones, but they are reducing down from a "gold plated" level. The older pensions are every bit as good as their "gold plated" phrase suggests. Without going into specifics, I cannot articulate how generous those pensions are and how expensive they are to the state.

Bottom line is that it is virtually impossible to compare the two pensions. The fund return variable in a DC arrangement is always the unknown quantity. If a DC Pension fund is lower then projected at retirement its tough luck. If a DB pension fund is lower then projected, the employer (in this case the state) covers the shortfall.

kippy · 24-07-2015 12:05PM

Drumpot wrote: »

I will believe that when I actually see it. I work mainly with people on the health side of the PS and Private sector and I haven't seen an example yet where a public servant has been better off in a private sector pension arrangement.

The newer pension arrangements are inferior to the older ones, but they are reducing down from a "gold plated" level. The older pensions are every bit as good as their "gold plated" phrase suggests. Without going into specifics, I cannot articulate how generous those pensions are and how expensive they are to the state.

Bottom line is that it is virtually impossible to compare the two pensions. The fund return variable in a DC arrangement is always the unknown quantity. If a DC Pension fund is lower then projected at retirement its tough luck. If a DB pension fund is lower then projected, the employer (in this case the state) covers the shortfall.

My point referred to the fact that the terms and conditions of the public sector pension are changeable and we have seen in the recent past the state increasing the amount that employees pay into these pensions.
There are a certain amount of employees who, no doubt, will do very well from their pensions relative to the amount they have put in over the years and yes you could call these "gold plated", however they too have and will have changes made to the terms and conditions of their pensions, again as we have seen over the past number of years and which we will no doubt see in future as well.

My main aim was to clarify the situation the OP will find them in if they do take the job as opposed to believe they'd be in for a gold plated pension at retirement.
It MIGHT work out better than the private sector, but that depends wholly on timing and any number of other variables.

I think you need to go into these roles with your eyes open. I've seen plenty people on here in recent times who have been offered roles in the PS, only to come to realise they could earn more in the private sector in their field (dispelling the myth that ALL public sector jobs are better paid than the private sector)
It's also worth pointing out that those pensions they may have heard about (the gold plated ones as frequently termed) may not be as much as they are cracked up to be with everything taken into account, depending on any number of variables.

24-07-2015 12:27PM

if pension scheme benefits change it will only be for subsequent new entrants with an option to opt-in for existing members. has always been this way.

pre 95 pension scheme members are generally no better or worse off in terms of COAP in the cases I've seen. the COAP is offset to the cent and post 95 scheme contributions qualify for tax deduction (Hence schemes being split between PRSI class A or B when we have to differentiate between them internally)

glad u asked me that, kippy, obv

24-07-2015 12:29PM

the cost of a public sector pension in a private scheme would be enormous relatively speaking

Drumpot · 24-07-2015 12:34PM

kippy wrote: »

My point referred to the fact that the terms and conditions of the public sector pension are changeable and we have seen in the recent past the state increasing the amount that employees pay into these pensions.
There are a certain amount of employees who, no doubt, will do very well from their pensions relative to the amount they have put in over the years and yes you could call these "gold plated", however they too have and will have changes made to the terms and conditions of their pensions, again as we have seen over the past number of years and which we will no doubt see in future as well.

My main aim was to clarify the situation the OP will find them in if they do take the job as opposed to believe they'd be in for a gold plated pension at retirement.
It MIGHT work out better than the private sector, but that depends wholly on timing and any number of other variables.

I think you need to go into these roles with your eyes open. I've seen plenty people on here in recent times who have been offered roles in the PS, only to come to realise they could earn more in the private sector in their field (dispelling the myth that ALL public sector jobs are better paid than the private sector)
It's also worth pointing out that those pensions they may have heard about (the gold plated ones as frequently termed) may not be as much as they are cracked up to be with everything taken into account, depending on any number of variables.

Statistically speaking it will work out better then a private sector DC arrangement, even after the downgraded pension.

I don't suggest anybody join the public service purely for the pension, but I do say to anybody who is thinking, the Pension on offer is more often then not way more value then you will get out of contributing the same amount to a DC pension.

Birneybau · 24-07-2015 12:51PM

Yeboah wrote: »

this post x 1000 imo

I left a big private sector company to take a position in the civil service. Almost 10 years later I can safely say it was best decision I could have made. At the time people thought I was mad as country was "booming".

My advice would be go for it !!!

Exact same experience here.

Also, being 8k down, there will be 2k clawed back over the next 2 Januarys, and there will be annual increments so you'll be back to where you were in no time.

offered a job in public service, should i take?

Comments