Garda, nurses, teachers and doctor's pay

thomasdylan · 02-04-2016 12:41PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Doctors are on 39k on point 2 of their scale. As in after their first year. It is a considerable jump fully deserved might I add.
The issue with teaching is that teachers do not start on 30k as they do not get full hours never mind overtime. Most would be lucky to pocket 15k.

Doctors receive excellent renumeration later on in their careers and have staggering potential earnings (take a look at the tax defaulters list every year) in comparison to a profession that has one opportunity of promotion within it which is worth 5k (Year Head).

The issue is that if you really value education (not just some "oh ye I care about education - my own that is, now I'm a doctor") and are also aware of the limited promotion and unflattering potential earnings, how do you attract really exemplary people into it?

It is all very straight forward labour economics.

Correct me if I'm wrong but teaching seems to have no issue attracting people into it.

I've said it before on this thread I think teachers and doctors starting salary is fair and that the focus for the teaching unions should be on more jobs with full hours for newly qualified teachers not on pay increases. I have a huge amount of sympathy for teachers in part time jobs but it seems like the unions focus isn't on them which is crazy. As you said yourself, 'The payscale is what this whole debate is surrounding' and teachers payscale seems fair. Having to work part time hours with no job security obviously isn't though.

As has been said, with every jump in pay for a doctor comes more responsibility and often you have to pass exams to go up the scale. I don't really understand increments for doing the same job with no extra responsibility or duties tbh.

Doctors do get well paid at consultant level, but they're a highly qualified, highly experienced group most of whom have lots of research and almost all of whom have experience in big centres in the US, etc. behind them. The reality is that if you don't pay them well, someone else will. Ireland already has issues with attracting consultants to work here. And it's only the absolute top end of doctors who become consultants too.

To sum things up, I think both doctors and teachers pay on the whole is reasonably fair, teachers having to work part time hours with no security obviously isn't. Tbh you just annoyed me with seeming not to understand what a junior doctor is (it's not really a trainee) and making up 10k in allowances that we get that we don't.

I do value education, nothing I've said has suggested anything different. You might as well say I don't value doctors because I've suggested that for both of us getting higher pay shouldn't be the big issue for our jobs.

maudgonner · 02-04-2016 12:54PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The issue is that if you really value education (not just some "oh ye I care about education - my own that is, now I'm a doctor") and are also aware of the limited promotion and unflattering potential earnings, how do you attract really exemplary people into it?

It is all very straight forward labour economics.

You keep mentioning limited potential for promotion and unflattering potential earnings. It's been mentioned on this thread that teachers with 25 years service earn 60k. That's not principals or vice-principals, teachers who have had no career advancement, are doing the same role as when they entered the profession. So every teacher who stays in the profession that long earns that wage, regardless of ability or skill.

That would be quite unusual in the private sector. Promotion and upward movement in pay grade usually required further training, further responsibility or expertise in a specific area. Not everyone will achieve this. Not everyone will progress up the pay scale. For those that do, their final salaries may well exceed those in the public service, maybe by a long way. But many will be left behind.

That, combined with the benefits of long holidays, shorter working hours, job security and pension can't be ignored.

tayto lover · 02-04-2016 01:17PM

maudgonner wrote: »

That's just a lazy cop-out.

When something is paid for from public funds, the public has the right to ask questions as to whether it is justified. Doing so does not mean that we're jealous or begrudging.

It's all about tone maud. The tone gives it away.

maudgonner · 02-04-2016 01:23PM

tayto lover wrote: »

It's all about tone maud. The tone gives it away.

So are you saying that all posters in this thread questioning the validity of PS salaries are begrudgers? Or whether some have valid points?

Because your post didn't single anyone out, it just made a blanket statement that indicated that any criticism was the product of begrudgery and so should be discounted.

purplecow1977 · 02-04-2016 01:23PM

thomasdylan wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but teaching seems to have no issue attracting people into it.

I've said it before on this thread I think teachers and doctors starting salary is fair and that the focus for the teaching unions should be on more jobs with full hours for newly qualified teachers not on pay increases. I have a huge amount of sympathy for teachers in part time jobs but it seems like the unions focus isn't on them which is crazy. As you said yourself, 'The payscale is what this whole debate is surrounding' and teachers payscale seems fair. Having to work part time hours with no job security obviously isn't though.

As has been said, with every jump in pay for a doctor comes more responsibility and often you have to pass exams to go up the scale. I don't really understand increments for doing the same job with no extra responsibility or duties tbh.

Doctors do get well paid at consultant level, but they're a highly qualified, highly experienced group most of whom have lots of research and almost all of whom have experience in big centres in the US, etc. behind them. The reality is that if you don't pay them well, someone else will. Ireland already has issues with attracting consultants to work here. And it's only the absolute top end of doctors who become consultants too.

To sum things up, I think both doctors and teachers pay on the whole is reasonably fair, teachers having to work part time hours with no security obviously isn't. Tbh you just annoyed me with seeming not to understand what a junior doctor is (it's not really a trainee) and making up 10k in allowances that we get that we don't.

I do value education, nothing I've said has suggested anything different. You might as well say I don't value doctors because I've suggested that for both of us getting higher pay shouldn't be the big issue for our jobs.

I happen to agree on the whole with what you've said.
What teachers are looking for a pay rise by the way, I'm not sure about this?

NQTs are looking for pay equality in line with their colleagues or do you mean the 'incremental' scale?
I think an incremental scale is fair considering it's a job with no promotional prospects, unless you go into vice or principal.

However, I do believe on the whole teachers are fairly paid. I don't think teachers are paid too much, but I think receive a fair wage.

What I would like to see happen in terms of teachers is the abolition of tiered payscales and an improvement in full time hours (post primary teachers are finding it impossible to get into schools). This is only set to get worse if the autonomy structure suggested finds its way into our schools.

tayto lover · 02-04-2016 01:35PM

maudgonner wrote: »

So are you saying that all posters in this thread questioning the validity of PS salaries are begrudgers? Or whether some have valid points?

Because your post didn't single anyone out, it just made a blanket statement that indicated that any criticism was the product of begrudgery and so should be discounted.

No i'm saying that there are certain posters who seem to to have genuine issues but others who just seem to begrudge the PS their wages and pensions. It's plain to see.

I don't work in the PS myself and would have issues around there being too many administrators in the HSE and too many garda members behind desks. I would, however, have a great time for the people who work in the frontline and I honestly think they are very much underpaid. I certainly wouldn't have the patience to do their jobs with the abuse they take and the odd unsocial hours they put in.

Mardy Bum · 02-04-2016 01:58PM

thomasdylan wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but teaching seems to have no issue attracting people into it.

I've said it before on this thread I think teachers and doctors starting salary is fair and that the focus for the teaching unions should be on more jobs with full hours for newly qualified teachers not on pay increases. I have a huge amount of sympathy for teachers in part time jobs but it seems like the unions focus isn't on them which is crazy. As you said yourself, 'The payscale is what this whole debate is surrounding' and teachers payscale seems fair. Having to work part time hours with no job security obviously isn't though.

As has been said, with every jump in pay for a doctor comes more responsibility and often you have to pass exams to go up the scale. I don't really understand increments for doing the same job with no extra responsibility or duties tbh.

Doctors do get well paid at consultant level, but they're a highly qualified, highly experienced group most of whom have lots of research and almost all of whom have experience in big centres in the US, etc. behind them. The reality is that if you don't pay them well, someone else will. Ireland already has issues with attracting consultants to work here. And it's only the absolute top end of doctors who become consultants too.

To sum things up, I think both doctors and teachers pay on the whole is reasonably fair, teachers having to work part time hours with no security obviously isn't. Tbh you just annoyed me with seeming not to understand what a junior doctor is (it's not really a trainee) and making up 10k in allowances that we get that we don't.

I do value education, nothing I've said has suggested anything different. You might as well say I don't value doctors because I've suggested that for both of us getting higher pay shouldn't be the big issue for our jobs.

The HDip in secondary teaching used to require a very high 2.1 for all non business degrees and you needed a master's along with a degree if you entered through business. Now it is a middling 2.2 following the cuts. That will continue as it now costs 12k to get a teaching qualification. The numbers applying may not waiver however skill level will and a little look at the state of the English education system will make that clear to you. Huge numbers of teachers don't make it past year 2.

Your tone belies the little value you see in a teacher and the skills and work required. The idea of increments is that teaching is one of the few professions in which by and large you continue doing the same job for your career and it is also a highly skilled job and does not have excellent promotion positions like medicine. Therefore increments are necessary if you want to attract talented people into it.

I erred in my description of pay scale and living out allowance but doctors are on 39k in their second year. It takes teachers 9 years full time to get that. All NQT teachers want is parity with their colleagues who started a year earlier. It isn't about a raise.

thomasdylan · 02-04-2016 03:09PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The HDip in secondary teaching used to require a very high 2.1 for all non business degrees and you needed a master's along with a degree if you entered through business. Now it is a middling 2.2 following the cuts. That will continue as it now costs 12k to get a teaching qualification. The numbers applying may not waiver however skill level will and a little look at the state of the English education system will make that clear to you. Huge numbers of teachers don't make it past year 2.

Your tone belies the little value you see in a teacher and the skills and work required. The idea of increments is that teaching is one of the few professions in which by and large you continue doing the same job for your career and it is also a highly skilled job and does not have excellent promotion positions like medicine. Therefore increments are necessary if you want to attract talented people into it.

I erred in my description of pay scale and living out allowance but doctors are on 39k in their second year. It takes teachers 9 years full time to get that. All NQT teachers want is parity with their colleagues who started a year earlier. It isn't about a raise.

I don't think there's been anything particularly negative in my tone, you made some stuff up about allowances, I got annoyed. That's it. Teaching is a difficult and skilled job, I'm not disputing that.
I thought it was 39k after 6 years for teachers. I could well be wrong though and I apologise if I am.

maudgonner · 02-04-2016 03:24PM

purplecow1977 wrote: »

What teachers are looking for a pay rise by the way, I'm not sure about this?

It was reported in the Irish Times that ASTI and INTO are seeking "the recovery of lost wages, the removal of the pensions levy and an end to lower salary scales for new teachers."

So two of the three claims have nothing to do with the situation of newly qualified teachers, but would apply to all (as far as I'm aware).

purplecow1977 · 02-04-2016 03:37PM

maudgonner wrote: »

It was reported in the Irish Times that ASTI and INTO are seeking "the recovery of lost wages, the removal of the pensions levy and an end to lower salary scales for new teachers."

So two of the three claims have nothing to do with the situation of newly qualified teachers, but would apply to all (as far as I'm aware).

RESTORATION of pay - cuts that were imposed as part of FEMPI to be reversed. Not extra. Restored.

According to Michael Noonan regarding the pension levy "“The pension fund levy has done its job and is no longer needed to fund the 9 per cent VAT rate because it is more than made up by increased activity and employment." http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/budget-2016-brings-end-to-levy-on-private-pension-funds-1.2389954

So I don't think teachers specifically are looking for anything that isn't already due.

I will agree to your third suggestion though with lower salary scales

maudgonner · 02-04-2016 03:39PM

purplecow1977 wrote: »

RESTORATION of pay - cuts that were imposed as part of FEMPI to be reversed. Not extra. Restored.

According to Michael Noonan regarding the pension levy "“The pension fund levy has done its job and is no longer needed to fund the 9 per cent VAT rate because it is more than made up by increased activity and employment." http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/budget-2016-brings-end-to-levy-on-private-pension-funds-1.2389954

So I don't think teachers specifically are looking for anything that isn't already due.

I will agree to your third suggestion though with lower salary scales

And restoration of lost wages? What does that mean?

Genuinely - I assume it to mean that they want the pay cuts reversed, but if I've misinterpreted it then I'm open to correction. The pay cuts that were imposed to reduce salaries that were very much inflated during boom times.

By the way, it bears repeating - the overwhelming response in this thread and elsewhere is that newly qualified teachers should be treated equally to more senior teachers (despite the fact that this is not what applies in the private sector). That does not necessarily mean raising their entry salary to 38k though.

bobbysands81 · 02-04-2016 03:46PM

Tzardine wrote: »

There are public service office cleaners being paid €800 per week. Thats crazy in my mind.

Here's a link to pay scales which state that the highest a cleaner in the Civil Service can earn is €465 percent.

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014-Circular-Circular-2-2014-Final...Jan_.pdf

Where are you getting your figures from?

doireannod · 02-04-2016 03:47PM

niallo27 wrote: »

I dont get the big support for nurses, a fair portion of them just sit around drinking tea all day and could not give a **** about their patients.

Most jarring and inaccurate post on this thread to date

doireannod · 02-04-2016 04:03PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Doctors are on 39k on point 2 of their scale. As in after their first year. It is a considerable jump fully deserved might I add.
The issue with teaching is that teachers do not start on 30k as they do not get full hours never mind overtime. Most would be lucky to pocket 15k.

Doctors receive excellent renumeration later on in their careers and have staggering potential earnings (take a look at the tax defaulters list every year) in comparison to a profession that has one opportunity of promotion within it which is worth 5k (Year Head).

The issue is that if you really value education (not just some "oh ye I care about education - my own that is, now I'm a doctor") and are also aware of the limited promotion and unflattering potential earnings, how do you attract really exemplary people into it?

It is all very straight forward labour economics.

The more I think about it the more I think that doctors should out earn teachers is because our basic pay represents 11 months of work (after annual leave days are taken in to account) whereas teachers basic pay represents 9 months.

When I think about how stressful and valuable both jobs are, I've come to realise that both teaching and "doctoring" are both high octane, high intensity, emotionally and physically draining jobs in which you give so much of yourself for the benefit of others.

Word of warning for my next sentence: this is a CRUDE guesstimation done for the purpose of making a point. So with that said....

Teachers starting get 30k per annum. So divide by 9. Comes to gross of 3.3k for each month worked. But doctors work for 11 months (taking annual leave days in in to account). So they earn 2.7k for each month worked.

So that's the main reason I think doctors should out earn teachers.

I really hope this isn't interpreted as inflammatory. That's not my intention. And the figures mentioned above are crude and used just for examples sake.

Also, I think it's kind of not nice to use doctors' overtime/on call payments as a stick to beat them with. On call is the most gruelling and physically exhausting nightmare on earth.

KatW4 · 02-04-2016 04:37PM

doireannod wrote:

Teachers starting get 30k per annum. So divide by 9. Comes to gross of 3.3k for each month worked. But doctors work for 11 months (taking annual leave days in in to account). So they earn 2.7k for each month worked.

I do agree with you that doctors should earn more money. They have such a hard job and they are so valuable.

The only issue I have is that teachers don't start on 30k. Teachers who have start in their permanent job do. Sometimes it takes years for a teacher to become permanent so they make just over half of the starting wage. I'm in my 4th year of teaching and I make 18k a year.

But apart from that, I believe doctors should definitely start out on a higher wage than teachers. The study, hours and the sheer responsibility of their job definitely means they should be paid well.

Mardy Bum · 02-04-2016 04:46PM

doireannod wrote: »

The more I think about it the more I think that doctors should out earn teachers is because our basic pay represents 11 months of work (after annual leave days are taken in to account) whereas teachers basic pay represents 3 months.

When I think about how stressful and valuable both jobs are, I've come to realise that both teaching and "doctoring" are both high octane, high intensity, emotionally and physically draining jobs in which you give so much of yourself for the benefit of others.

Word of warning for my next sentence: this is a CRUDE guesstimation done for the purpose of making a point. So with that said....

Teachers starting get 30k per annum. So divide by 9. Comes to gross of 3.3k for each month worked. But doctors work for 11 months (taking annual leave days in in to account). So they earn 2.7k for each month worked.

So that's the main reason I think doctors should out earn teachers.

I really hope this isn't interpreted as inflammatory. That's not my intention. And the figures mentioned above are crude and used just for examples sake.

Also, I think it's kind of not nice to use doctors' overtime/on call payments as a stick to beat them with. On call is the most gruelling and physically exhausting nightmare on earth.

Of course doctors should earn more than teachers in their careers. It is a more difficult job and more skilled not to say teaching isn't.

I've explained this numerous times; potential earnings as well as eventually earnings must be taken into account.

It is very easy to take point 1 of the scale and make a point but you have to take the whole scale into consideration and the promotion aspect - intern, SHO, registrar, senior registrar, specialist registrar. I know there are exams to be passed and experience needed however it is still possible which it isn't in teaching therefore something has to give at some point of the scale.

Potential earnings have to be taken into account when devising a salary scale. It is basic labour economics. If there is potential to earn more in a certain job it will attract more people and generally more intelligent people. The CAO point system exemplifies this each year (Medicine, Eci & Fi, Law, Actuarial Studies, Architecture, Engineering etc)with the exception of ICT mainly because of the lack of schooling in the area.

Really we are arguing over nothing at this point; doctors do earn more (a huge amount more over their careers) than teachers and rightly so.

maudgonner · 02-04-2016 05:23PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The idea of increments is that teaching is one of the few professions in which by and large you continue doing the same job for your career and it is also a highly skilled job and does not have excellent promotion positions like medicine. Therefore increments are necessary if you want to attract talented people into it.

I think increments purely for length of service are one of the most bizarre aspects of the way public sector pay is calculated. Particularly for teaching. I think most of us can tell stories from own school days of teachers who had completely lost interest in their job and just turned up to collect the paycheque. One of mine would frequently leave us to our own devices while he read his newspaper.

By and large the most enthusiastic and dedicated teachers I saw were those in the first ten years of their career. They put more into their job and gave more to their students than the more senior teachers. They earned every penny of their money.

I'd far rather see more money being given to new teachers (and their conditions being improved) than giving people greater and greater reward simply for continuing to do their job. If that causes older teachers to leave the profession, so be it. Reward people for the work they do, not because you're afraid they will leave.

doireannod · 02-04-2016 05:23PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Of course doctors should earn more than teachers in their careers. It is a more difficult job and more skilled not to say teaching isn't.

I've explained this numerous times; potential earnings as well as eventually earnings must be taken into account.

It is very easy to take point 1 of the scale and make a point but you have to take the whole scale into consideration and the promotion aspect - intern, SHO, registrar, senior registrar, specialist registrar. I know there are exams to be passed and experience needed however it is still possible which it isn't in teaching therefore something has to give at some point of the scale.

Potential earnings have to be taken into account when devising a salary scale. It is basic labour economics. If there is potential to earn more in a certain job it will attract more people and generally more intelligent people. The CAO point system exemplifies this each year (Medicine, Eci & Fi, Law, Actuarial Studies, Architecture, Engineering etc)with the exception of ICT mainly because of the lack of schooling in the area.

Really we are arguing over nothing at this point; doctors do earn more (a huge amount more over their careers) than teachers and rightly so.

Yeah I agree we're essentially arguing over nothing at this stage! Just wanted to say that I've thought about it a lot an the last comment is what I think my final standpoint on it is!

esforum · 02-04-2016 06:55PM

maudgonner wrote: »

I think increments purely for length of service are one of the most bizarre aspects of the way public sector pay is calculated.

Are you suggesting pay structures which reward service are not in the private sector?

Have you ever worked in a fast food place, factory or offices like tech support?

In all my jobs, annual raises existed. Some prearranged, some negotiated but all happened

esforum · 02-04-2016 06:56PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

The Gardai, ladies and gentlemen.

We are a witty bunch.

maudgonner · 02-04-2016 07:10PM

esforum wrote: »

Are you suggesting pay structures which reward service are not in the private sector?

Have you ever worked in a fast food place, factory or offices like tech support?

In all my jobs, annual raises existed. Some prearranged, some negotiated but all happened

Annual raises to cover inflation? Or annual raises on the scale of the increments in the public service? There's a massive difference.

esforum · 02-04-2016 08:57PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Annual raises to cover inflation? Or annual raises on the scale of the increments in the public service? There's a massive difference.

Annual increases because I am a year longer there. Its called experience and it earns higher salaries in all walks of life.

You aren't suggesting that the money you get on day one will only climb to match inflation? Cmon now, none of us were born yestetday

maudgonner · 02-04-2016 09:54PM

esforum wrote: »

Annual increases because I am a year longer there. Its called experience and it earns higher salaries in all walks of life.

You aren't suggesting that the money you get on day one will only climb to match inflation? Cmon now, none of us were born yestetday

Rarely on the scale of the increases in the public sector. There will normally be a bit higher than inflation increases to encourage staff retention, but not massive.

Pay survey for retail assistants: "Pay for this job does not change much by experience, with the most experienced earning only a bit more than the least."
Pay survey for waiter/waitress: "Pay for this job does not change much by experience, with the most experienced earning only a bit more than the least."
Pay survey for Tech support: "For the first five to ten years in this position, pay increases somewhat, but any additional experience does not have a big effect on pay."

Those are the closest to the examples that you gave I can see - no details on increments are given for factory workers or fast food workers.

mynamejeff · 02-04-2016 09:55PM

maudgonner wrote: »

That's just a lazy cop-out.

When something is paid for from public funds, the public has the right to ask questions as to whether it is justified. Doing so does not mean that we're jealous or begrudging.

No the public does not !

Thats just what your inflated sense of entitlement tells you.

Do you have the experience and qualification to judge how a Doctor nurse teacher or garda does their job ? Of course not. you just think you do.

People in certain professions are paid for expertise that you do not have.

Its fairly well established that if you dont pay people for their skills they will leave and go where decent pay is available. As nurses doctors and teachers and gardaare in their droves.

Geuze · 02-04-2016 10:07PM

purplecow1977 wrote: »

R

According to Michael Noonan regarding the pension levy "“The pension fund levy has done its job and is no longer needed to fund the 9 per cent VAT rate because it is more than made up by increased activity and employment." http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/budget-2016-brings-end-to-levy-on-private-pension-funds-1.2389954

Please note that the pension levy referred to above is a levy on pension funds.

Whereas what all PS pay is the Pension-related deduction PRD, also confusingly sometimes called the pension levy.

Geuze · 02-04-2016 10:31PM

Note that newly qualified accountants, aged approx 25, start on 48k approx in the big firms in Dublin.

If the PS is to attract high calibre staff, then it must offer good wages.

Everybody wants strong candidates to be attracted into teaching.

maryishere · 02-04-2016 10:44PM

Geuze wrote: »

Note that newly qualified accountants, aged approx 25, start on 48k approx in the big firms in Dublin.

And half or a third of that in certain small offices down the country, where you can buy a new apartment for 40 or 50k.
One swallow does not a summer make.
Two wrongs do not make a right. You are chosing a specific profession in a specific location. What about other professions eg Architects or Quantity surveyors - I know one of them who was lucky enough to get a job and is on €400 a week.

end of the road · 02-04-2016 10:46PM

Geuze wrote: »

If the PS is to attract high calibre staff, then it must offer good wages.

Everybody wants strong candidates to be attracted into teaching.

well, some of us do. much of the people however don't want to pay for such candidates. they want everyone else to be on the same wage as them, nobody can earn any higher then them.

tayto lover · 02-04-2016 10:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

well, some of us do. much of the people however don't want to pay for such candidates. they want everyone else to be on the same wage as them, nobody can earn any higher then them.

But it's not begrudgery, jealousy, envy or anything like that. It's ah em just genuine concern.

Geuze · 02-04-2016 10:54PM

maryishere wrote: »

And half or a third of that in certain small offices down the country, where you can buy a new apartment for 40 or 50k.

Leinster chartered accountants, 2015:

https://leinster.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/Leinster/Leinster-Salary-Survey-2015.pdf

Newly qualified = 58k

Average total package = 100k, incl overtime / bonus / car

Garda, nurses, teachers and doctor's pay

Comments