Garda, nurses, teachers and doctor's pay

enricoh · 04-04-2016 09:21PM

Average weekly wage for public sector is 50% more than private sector. Factor in job security, lump sum n pension on top of that.
Fair play to the union's u,' d swear it was the private sector getting paid 50% more the way they get to bleat on rte day and night.

esforum · 04-04-2016 09:36PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Excuse me?
Whatever about you going off on others who have a problem with the public service, to treat your own like that?
I won't be backing up any of your arguments from now on.

i felt the post was suitable ott that emoticons were not needed to display sarcasm

maudgonner · 04-04-2016 09:37PM

esforum wrote: »

We are still back at my wages, what am I worth and why less than (insert other job here). I fail to see why I shouldnt be rewarded for a lot of convictions / tickets other than people wouldnt like the Gardai suddently losing their discretion (but agree with Mick and Daly when they go after it for some reason)

Do you really think that having pay related to arrests/convictions is a good idea? Or are you just arguing black is white because I've stated the opposite?
Because I would have thought that this is exactly the kind of measure Gardaí would be up in arms about. It's open to abuse, could unfairly impact on those who get stuck on desk duty, night shifts vs day shifts, area you're stationed in etc etc.

Its personal from the start, you are discussing my career, my pay, my pension. It was personal the second you commented.

freelance contractor. freelance = self employed. Contractor = contracted for a set duration for a defined purpose.

YOU made that decision, no one made it for you and when you made that decision you knew the pros and cons of that choose compared to all others.

and again, the fact that your chosen career doesnt collective bargain changes nothing. It still happens all the time in the private sector but not in mine.

You nor Mary came in arguing specific careers, you were both clear. Public V Private. You stated that the public sector should earn less because of A, B and C, I have countered with perks that exist in the private sector.

(by the way collective bargaining means a union or national structure where freelance is concerned.)

All along I've kept my own situation out if it because my position should in no way influence my opinion about public sector salaries. For me it isn't personal. I've made my choices, they're mine to live with and mine alone. It doesn't stop me taking an objective stance on what I believe is fair in the public sector.

I haven't singled out specific roles & wages, because I don't know enough about the different pay grades. The only one I did mention was teaching, where I said that I feel 31k is a fair wage for a new entrant. I stand by that due to the short working year. I feel that any extra resources should go to giving new entrants better conditions rather than a 38k-based pay scale. I stated that I believe any pay premium in public-vs private sector should take into account the substantial benefits that go along with a public sector job, so in like-for-like situations it's appropriate that a private sector salary should be higher. You've pointed out that it's difficult to make a direct comparison for many roles, I don't argue with that.

(ETA: Correction, I forgot that I've also said that I believe basic wages in the defence forces should go up - from what I know of their pay & conditions they deserve better.)

And as you've said, I'm self-employed. That means no unions, by the way, and no national structure, so no collective bargaining by your description.

esforum · 04-04-2016 09:42PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Do you really think that having pay related to arrests/convictions is a good idea? Or are you just arguing black is white because I've stated the opposite?
Because I would have thought that this is exactly the kind of measure Gardaí would be up in arms about. It's open to abuse, could unfairly impact on those who get stuck on desk duty, night shifts vs day shifts, area you're stationed in etc etc.

All along I've kept my own situation out if it because my position should in no way influence my opinion about public sector salaries. For me it isn't personal. I've made my choices, they're mine to live with and mine alone. It doesn't stop me taking an objective stance on what I believe is fair in the public sector.

As you've pointed out, I'm self-employed. That means no unions, by the way, and no national structure, so no collective bargaining by your description.

you have been asked straight questions. the fact that you wont answer is enough for me

esforum · 04-04-2016 09:46PM

enricoh wrote: »

Average weekly wage for public sector is 50% more than private sector. Factor in job security, lump sum n pension on top of that.
Fair play to the union's u,' d swear it was the private sector getting paid 50% more the way they get to bleat on rte day and night.

https://i.imgflip.com/3fyi0.jpg

maryishere · 04-04-2016 09:47PM

esforum wrote: »

what! The shambles, absolute shambles. You know what you should do bubblepop? GO round to my house after I die and steal some food from the fridge, you bought it afterall.

(give the lazy cow living off Mary's taxes a kick as your leaving and if shes not there, the youngest kid)

You should apologise for such a post. You are nothing but a troll as far as I can see.

esforum · 04-04-2016 09:48PM

Get Real wrote: »

I've looked in and out of this forum over the past while.

And I can understand both sides at times as I have worked in both public and private. TBH there's positives and negatives to both.

Too many people take a grass is greener approach. But this post above is just madness.

That has nothing to do with pay or anything. Those parents decide to give teachers Christmas presents of their own free will. Are we going to start analyzing how many presents or thank yous a job gets from members of the public now?

And she does grinds to get more money...well yeah, wouldn't you? Thats a good business attitude and if she can make money off private individuals who want her services, fair play to her. Whats the;) for as if its some hush hush thing?

If its so good, why not apply yourself? Don't you want the job if its so great? So go for it!

People, this is not public v private. There are good and bad to both. This is about inequality, suffered within the public service and within the private service.

Its also about huge rent inflation, mortgage rules, uncertainty about forming a government. Why those in the public sector have been shafted by their older colleagues. Why those in the private sector have been shafted by their management, why people with half the qualifications have jumped in ahead of them because of nepotism and connections.

Whatever sector you're in, if you're getting f~~~ed, you should complain about your conditions, not each other.

You should put pressure on, or change to a job thats better to its employees or upskill and leave. This applies to both sectors.

It should not come down to who gets nice little Christmas presents, a box of Quality Street perhaps, at the end of the year.

Mary is gonna love you

maudgonner · 04-04-2016 10:10PM

Get Real wrote: »

I've looked in and out of this forum over the past while.

And I can understand both sides at times as I have worked in both public and private. TBH there's positives and negatives to both.

Agreed, for sure.

Why those in the public sector have been shafted by their older colleagues.

This is the crux of the upcoming pay issue, for me. It's widely acknowledged (even by some of the PS workers on here) that senior staff in the public service maintained their own earnings at the expense of new entrants.

I completely agree that new entrants need to get a much fairer deal. I just don't think that the tax payer should necessarily have to foot the bill. I think more senior staff should have to make some sacrifices to redress the balance.

Geuze · 04-04-2016 10:19PM

maryishere wrote: »

FGR wrote: »

Yes I do get a defined benefit pension which will work out in my favour should I live long enough to claim beyond the break even point - ./QUOTE]
Is it true that if when someone who has a public sector pension passes away , the pension transfers in full to their spouse - even if that spouse is much younger than the deceased person?

This is a common feature of many occupational pensions.

In the PS, the spouse gets half the workers pension, not the "pension in full".

Geuze · 04-04-2016 10:23PM

enricoh wrote: »

Average weekly wage for public sector is 50% more than private sector. Factor in job security, lump sum n pension on top of that.
Fair play to the union's u,' d swear it was the private sector getting paid 50% more the way they get to bleat on rte day and night.

This is incorrect.

I have repeatedly, over and over, linked to reports on the size of the PS pay premium, which I fully accept existed before the three paycuts.

Please don't peddle myths.

Geuze · 04-04-2016 10:25PM

maudgonner wrote: »

I haven't singled out specific roles & wages, because I don't know enough about the different pay grades. The only one I did mention was teaching, where I said that I feel 31k is a fair wage for a new entrant. I stand by that due to the short working year. I feel that any extra resources should go to giving new entrants better conditions rather than a 38k-based pay scale. they deserve better.)

I support well-paid teachers. I would agree that 30k approx is a fine starting wage.

Geuze · 04-04-2016 10:27PM

maudgonner wrote: »

This is the crux of the upcoming pay issue, for me. It's widely acknowledged (even by some of the PS workers on here) that senior staff in the public service maintained their own earnings at the expense of new entrants.

Yes, new entrants took an extra 10% pay cut, on top of the other pay cuts.

maryishere · 04-04-2016 10:33PM

Geuze wrote: »

This is incorrect.

I have repeatedly, over and over, linked to reports on the size of the PS pay premium, which I fully accept existed before the three paycuts.

Please don't peddle myths.

And the public service pay premium still exists, (reports linked), so you please do not peddle myths.

Many people in the private sector took a 100% wage cut in the past 8 years too, and do not have your pension. Why should the ps have a premium at all, given how extraordinarily advantageous the security and defined benefit pension is?

Geuze · 04-04-2016 10:47PM

Note that thousands of staff left the PS.

The local councils cut up to 25% of staff.

Though I accept there weren't any compulsory redundancies.

Geuze · 04-04-2016 10:51PM

maryishere wrote: »

And the public service pay premium still exists, (reports linked), so you please do not peddle myths.

Many people in the private sector took a 100% wage cut in the past 8 years too, and do not have your pension. Why should the ps have a premium at all, given how extraordinarily advantageous the security and defined benefit pension is?

The PS pay premium has been reduced to 1.3%.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2010/publicprivatepay.pdf

So, on average, PS earn 1.3% more than their private sector equivalents.

For some grades, the premium is higher, mainly the lower paid.

For other grades, the premium is negative, i.e. they are paid less than the private sector.

Geuze · 04-04-2016 10:52PM

The DB pension is generous, yes.

Though the PS pay up to 17% of wages for it.

6.5% normal contributions plus up to 10.5% PRD.

maryishere · 04-04-2016 10:55PM

Geuze wrote: »

Note that thousands of staff left the PS.

The local councils cut up to 25% of staff.

Though I accept there weren't any compulsory redundancies.

That is the key thing, there was not any compulsory redundancies. You will always get people who change careers, or retire, or cannot continue to work for family or health reasons, or who get married and move to a different country or whatever.

The fact "the local councils cut up to 25% of staff." as you say just shows how overstaffed some of them were. I know other council staff who took a 3 year career break from the Council and who had a guaranteed job to return to after 3 years....and not only that, but they got €12,000 a year from the council for each year they were off, for doing nothing. Very few private sector employees can get than....as rare as hens teeth.

04-04-2016 11:26PM

maryishere wrote: »

That is the key thing, there was not any compulsory redundancies. You will always get people who change careers, or retire, or cannot continue to work for family or health reasons, or who get married and move to a different country or whatever.

The fact "the local councils cut up to 25% of staff." as you say just shows how overstaffed some of them were. I know other council staff who took a 3 year career break from the Council and who had a guaranteed job to return to after 3 years....and not only that, but they got €12,000 a year from the council for each year they were off, for doing nothing. Very few private sector employees can get than....as rare as hens teeth.

The incentivised career break was introduced in the downturn as a way of saving money.
Sorry I didn't take it myself.
The ordinary career break, is just that, off ya go for however long, no pay. Your job is not actually guaranteed when you come back ( if you do )
It probably saves money for the government.

However, if a guard takes a career break, & then comes back, obviously they will get a job. Why? Because the time & cost of training someone from scratch is ridiculous when there is already someone trained.

I hardly think that's a big plus, I'm sure the private sector would do the same, if a woman, for example, took a career break, & the cost of training someone else was huge, then she would get her job back no problem.

maryishere · 04-04-2016 11:51PM

bubblypop wrote: »

The incentivised career break was introduced in the downturn as a way of saving money.
Sorry I didn't take it myself.
The ordinary career break, is just that, off ya go for however long, no pay. Your job is not actually guaranteed when you come back ( if you do )
It probably saves money for the government.

It costs the government 12k a year / 36k over the 3 years. One person I know who took the break was delighted, she wanted to be at home with her kids, her husband has a good job, and she was delighted with the €36,000 for not working. She would probably have taken the 3 years off for free.

bubblypop wrote: »

I hardly think that's a big plus, I'm sure the private sector would do the same, if a woman, for example, took a career break, & the cost of training someone else was huge, then she would get her job back no problem.

Most private sector employers cannot guarantee a job to their employees if they want to take a career break for 3 years. Many do not even know if they will be in business in 3 years. Small businesses / self employed simply cannot usually do it. And not many businesses give their employees 36k for NOT working.

maudgonner · 05-04-2016 12:01AM

bubblypop wrote: »

The ordinary career break, is just that, off ya go for however long, no pay. Your job is not actually guaranteed when you come back ( if you do )

Has this changed recently? It was my understanding that you were guaranteed an equivalent job (not necessarily the same job as you left, obviously) within a certain period of the end of the career break?

05-04-2016 08:16AM

maudgonner wrote: »

Has this changed recently? It was my understanding that you were guaranteed an equivalent job (not necessarily the same job as you left, obviously) within a certain period of the end of the career break?

That's what I meant, you will have a job, just not gaureented your own job.

05-04-2016 08:22AM

maryishere wrote: »

It costs the government 12k a year / 36k over the 3 years. One person I know who took the break was delighted, she wanted to be at home with her kids, her husband has a good job, and she was delighted with the €36,000 for not working. She would probably have taken the 3 years off for free.

Most private sector employers cannot guarantee a job to their employees if they want to take a career break for 3 years. Many do not even know if they will be in business in 3 years. Small businesses / self employed simply cannot usually do it. And not many businesses give their employees 36k for NOT working.

I'm not sure what the issue is here Mary, 36k for 3 years of not working is still saving money for the government.
It worked out well for the person you know. Are you bitter towards her? You sound it. She still needs to work those 3 years back at the end of her service.
I know people that took it too. I know some who couldn't have afforded to take an unpaid break.
They still saved the government money.
It's looking more & more like sour grapes Mary.
A government scheme to save money, works out well for some employees, and you feel that's another reason to put down the public service.

Paulzx · 05-04-2016 12:20PM

maryishere wrote: »

, she wanted to be at home with her kids, her husband has a good job, and she was delighted with the €36,000 for not working. She would probably have taken the 3 years off for free.

Mo

I think that's a highly sexist and discrimanatory remark to say that minding kids is not work. You have belittled your friend and all stay at home parents in the eyes of the Boards.e. nation

Disgusting................

Little CuChulainn · 05-04-2016 12:40PM

enricoh wrote: »

Average weekly wage for public sector is 50% more than private sector. Factor in job security, lump sum n pension on top of that.
Fair play to the union's u,' d swear it was the private sector getting paid 50% more the way they get to bleat on rte day and night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDii69YCh_Q

Fighting Irish · 05-04-2016 01:38PM

kowloon wrote: »

If you choose to be a nurse despite the bad wage you must really want to be a nurse. It's not a job you fall into because you need money. It was a compliment to a bunch of people who work hard for less than they deserve.

Maybe you should be the one in government.

Bad wage compared to what?

tayto lover · 05-04-2016 04:43PM

It's looking like the poor wages of teachers, garda and nurses has now been recognised and will be addressed --

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0405/779520-mulvey-lansdowne-pay/

pragmatic1 · 05-04-2016 04:57PM

Most in the public sector get away with absolute murder and would not survive in the private sector. I've worked in both and the public sector is definitely cushier.

doireannod · 05-04-2016 05:55PM

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Done

There's still a grammatical error in the title now that we're mentioning it. Surprised the teachers haven't spotted it ;-)

evolving_doors · 05-04-2016 06:47PM

Apostro....
...Hey are you trying to get me banned for grammar nazi ING... Muuuuussst reeeesiiiisst..

KatW4 · 05-04-2016 07:22PM

maryishere wrote:

naw, people get in to teaching for the holidays, the pay, the security and the pension....oh and the opportunity to do grinds too . Although the newer entrants joining now got shafted by the unions / the older teachers there already, so do always automatically get all the above.

People like you actually disgust me. Do you really think that all teachers get into teaching for the holidays and the pay? I'm not denying that some do but don't try and tar us all with the same brush.

Garda, nurses, teachers and doctor's pay

Comments