View Full Version : Public v Private Sector Debate
I think it shows in the last 15 years what international investment and privatisation-leading to- better competition
Name the privatisations and deregulations that have lead to better service and reduced costs? Even the great white hope of deregulation the taxi has actually meant cost increases to consumer. CIE, which FF/PD want to privatise is actually one of the most efficient in europe (of both privatised markets and publicly operated)
better infrastructure can do.
Infrastructure nearly all public funded anyway, and there was a recent report that showed that for roads the public funded schemes came in cheaper than Public Private Partnerships.
paul_oshea
17/01/2007, 1:48 PM
Infrastructure nearly all public funded anyway, and there was a recent report that showed that for roads the public funded schemes came in cheaper than Public Private Partnerships.
hmmm, look at most of the PPP's came in on-time nearly 100% of the time, plus under-budget and a lot of the time a few months early, that never happens out of PPP's. What do you think Macy has fuelled and/or funded this, I mean all the money available for roads etc? Going off topic btw kinda.
The EU mostly funded it. If I have time I'll dig out the report. It was only in the last couple of days.
The reason that gets people is because it is so hard to get into the public sector ( almost like an old boys network in one sense ), and they see its cushy and a handy number, then they see their paycheck and 800 a month is coming out on tax or whatever. Maybe its jealously, I dont know ( not in my case, not yet anyhow ;) ), but it makes people ask awkward questions, and it also makes people perceive things, that when you go in and see for yourself, can be answered!!!
I think there is an element of that & shows that Benchmarking was one of the greatest scams ever sold to the Nation. Countless studies have shown that public sector pay & conditions are greater than the private sector which proves that Benchmarking has screwed the taxpayer & provided nice benefits for the public sector.
Some days I think i'd like a nice cushy number in the public sector but then I realise i'd be bored in a few days. Unless i;m busy I get bored at work very easily.
Reading recently how Shannon airport workers turned down average redundency payment of 100k plus new (lower paid) job in outsourced job (i assume this guaranteed for some period of time). I think they would come out with 70k after tax I can think of no private sector person who would turn down that deal so must be some cushy job in Shannon airport. :eek:
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 2:05 PM
Countless studies have shown that public sector pay & conditions are greater than the private sector which proves that Benchmarking has screwed the taxpayer & provided nice benefits for the public sector.
Countless biased studies by IBEC that take public service pay as an average including Sec Gens, P.O.s A.P.s (High grades) T.D.s and Government ministers!!!
An entry level Clerical officer earns 21 grand per year. The majority of civil servants are of that grade. An entry level EO (middle management) gets 27 grand. If you work at IT in the civil service your earnings are based on your grade not on your skills. You would get way more in the private sector.
Countless studies have shown that public sector pay & conditions are greater than the private sector which proves that Benchmarking has screwed the taxpayer & provided nice benefits for the public sector.
How many times do we have go through this? Countless studies that use average pay which includes the top brass, politicians, high overtime jobs like the Gards and Prison Service. The whole scheme, as well as national wage agreements, paying on percentages have lead to massive increases for the top levels of the civil service, and giving handy fodder to the likes of IBEC. It's the same bull**** statistical analysis that Cowen has used to try and claim only 20% of workers are paying at the top rate of tax, or do you believe that too?
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 2:15 PM
hmmm, look at most of the PPP's came in on-time nearly 100% of the time, plus under-budget and a lot of the time a few months early, that never happens out of PPP's. What do you think Macy has fuelled and/or funded this, I mean all the money available for roads etc? Going off topic btw kinda.
Port Tunnel. :rolleyes:
Also "On time" and "under budget" are terms relative to the targets that are set.
kingdom hoop
17/01/2007, 2:50 PM
trudged through this thread with a few things sticking out...whatever inefficiencies are in the public sector are firstly a system problem, and secondly down to individuals - like a football team with stan in charge even the best will struggle but through their ability and determination they can emerge from the mundane, while the less ambitious can amble along safe in the knowledge that management wont drop them or see any of their faults because eventually someone else well cover for them.i mention ambition as i think going back a few decades(when there werent jobs elsewhere) the public sector was seen as guaranteeing a secure position for years, therefore people went for jobs as civil sevants,teachers, gardaí etc firstly because there wasnt really an alternative and then, as we are now discovering to our cost, without really considering there own attributes and individual talents. so that now we have people who are not happy in there jobs and as a result not producing what they could or should..the unions are protecting the jobs of such people now by resisting change, as in the Shannon example, macy - in the 1800s workers were downtrodden because of malevolent managers and, crucially, workers were afraid to speak up for themselves, now with huge labour mobility in the private sector people realise they can stand up and be counted without fear of not getting another job, or if they do a good job there is a good chance management well bow to their wishes or at least discuss the issue, unlike 100 years ago
paul_oshea
17/01/2007, 2:58 PM
[quote]Also "On time" and "under budget" are terms relative to the targets that are set.[\quote]
that was a pointless project from the start, and who decided on that?
trudged through this thread with a few things sticking out...whatever inefficiencies are in the public sector are firstly a system problem, and secondly down to individuals...
The system is run by Civil Servants!
That analogy is very eircomleague-esque. Clubs moaning about the way the eL run dispite the fact is was actually run by the clubs themselves.
:eek:
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 3:02 PM
now with huge labour mobility in the private sector people realise they can stand up and be counted without fear of not getting another job, or if they do a good job there is a good chance management well bow to their wishes or at least discuss the issue, unlike 100 years ago
That is simply not borne out by facts. There is a trend for new jobs to be un-unionised low paying with poor working conditions (this is a general trend-I'm sure people here can cite examples of their friend the accountant or the guy with the IT qualification-I'm talking in general) in the services sector. I have spoken to young workers in the course of "End Low Pay" campaigns, and unionisation campaigns who are terrified of their bosses finding out they spoke to us.
The system is run by Civil Servants!
have you dropped your ludicrous claims on pay Pete?
kingdom hoop
17/01/2007, 3:07 PM
The system is run by Civil Servants!
That analogy is very eircomleague-esque. Clubs moaning about the way the eL run dispite the fact is was actually run by the clubs themselves.
:eek:
:o :o oops!!
my opinions are also applicable to the private sector, its just easier to pick on the public sector..sorry boys, i might just have to revise my thoughts given the excellence of this site and its management
(nothing like a bit of plaumás to get out of a tricky situation)
Peadar
17/01/2007, 3:14 PM
I have spoken to young workers in the course of "End Low Pay" campaigns, and unionisation campaigns who are terrified of their bosses finding out they spoke to us.
Damn right, they should be!
They know well they don't deserve more pay and therefore wouldn't bother asking their boss, but they sniff a chance to force the company to give them more, by talking to people in unions.
If I wasn't happy with the conditions in my job, I'd speak to my manager, failing that, I'd speak to his manager and would also have to option of speaking to HR. If none of that worked, I could go out and get another job, with a rival company.
Not because some union did something but because I'm an individual and can think for myself, allowing me to make my own decisions.
have you dropped your ludicrous claims on pay Pete?
No. Like for like public sector jobs pay as much or more than private sector. Considering I would have no contributory pension & lot more perks I don't feel I would be financial worse off in the public sector. My job mobility might be limited though & also might be difficult to go back to the private sector if I choose, Remind me in a few years when ready to be out out to pasture :p ;)
kingdom hoop
17/01/2007, 3:24 PM
That is simply not borne out by facts.
its not borne out with facts, i was giving an opinion... i should have put in that people should realise they have other options outside of going to the union, they should be confident in their abilities and that they desrerve better. i fully accept unions are required in certain situations, but they have also lost their relevence compared to 100 years ago which was my point
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 3:37 PM
No. Like for like public sector jobs pay as much or more than private sector.
Even though Macy and Myself have consistantly given figures to disprove that?
Remind me in a few years when ready to be out out to pasture
What :confused:
but they have also lost their relevence compared to 100 years ago which was my point
If there is a general tendency in society for wages to fall and hours at work to increase, therefore squeezing more out of wokers for less pay then Unions are as relevant as ever. Just a pity they are in the state they are in.
paul_oshea
17/01/2007, 3:47 PM
Even though Macy and Myself have consistantly given figures to disprove that?
But you two both discredit figures/studies that come from the other side!!! :rolleyes:
Remind me in a few years when ready to be out out to pasture
Its hard sometimes alright, but what he means is that when he is ready almost to retirement and the easy life, remind him then.
dahamsta
17/01/2007, 3:48 PM
I want to see facts posted on the pay issue or I'm not allowing any more discussion on it. Pete, that means you. You made a claim, now back it up or drop it.
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 3:55 PM
But you two both discredit figures/studies that come from the other side!!! :rolleyes:
Er, because we have provided the actual figures for public sector pay.
Once again - Entry level pay for the grade that the majority of Civil servants are is €21,625.
With incriments it takes 13 years for that to rise to €35 grand. That is fact not some concocted average.
Average annual Earnings for All Employees in Banking, Insurance and Building Societies as of 2005 was €40,012
(Sourse: Central statistics office).
Disclaimer: I accept this is an average and all banking staff do not get this.
kingdom hoop
17/01/2007, 4:02 PM
If there is a general tendency in society for wages to fall and hours at work to increase, therefore squeezing more out of wokers for less pay then Unions are as relevant as ever. Just a pity they are in the state they are in.
the keyword is the first; if
i know you have more anecdotal evidence but are wages really falling? also, you mention some 'end low pay' campaign, isnt our minimum wage amongst the highest in europe?
paul_oshea
17/01/2007, 4:04 PM
How can you directly compare someone who leaves school does a few entry exams and starts on a basic salary to someone who spends to 4 - 5 years in a related field of study and then goes into that career? Also there aren't enough direct jobs related from one sector to the other.
I know from my school alone 15 ( out of 120+ )that went into it after school, whereas I had only started working 5 years later. I have only passed them out recently I reckon if even. so thats 5+ years on me, as well as expenses I incurred in Uni. these factors also have to be taken into account. I do know that not everyone within the public sector goes directly from school into civil service, nor do those who have worked in pubs and what not till 25 then decide to go into civil service, I know quite a few of these too.
I think the only ones that you can directly relate to are Consultants V Civil Service, as thats the only real inter-relation between too, in that case consultants win hands-down (in every sense :D) in wages, but in related hours of work, where overtime and flexi-time don't exist, so it would average out about the same after total hours worked!!!
Student Mullet
17/01/2007, 4:09 PM
Disclaimer: I accept this is an average and all banking staff do not get this.The disclaimer somewhat invalidates your argument given that you were complaining about the same averages being applied to public workers.
Both sides to this argument have merit. There are certainly bad employers out there taking advantage of vulnerable workers and equally there are unions out there which act to protect bad working practices.
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 4:09 PM
the keyword is the first; if
i know you have more anecdotal evidence but are wages really falling? also, you mention some 'end low pay' campaign, isnt our minimum wage amongst the highest in europe?
On average wages are rising. Not by much but yes they are rising. However the numbers of low pay jobs are also rising. So in effect the wealth gap is increasing.
On minimum wage, yes but prices are lower in most of those countries. Also under 18's have a much reduced minimum wage and there are more employers than you would think not paying it. I was personally threatened for outing employers who were paying below the minimum wage.
The disclaimer somewhat invalidates your argument given that you were complaining about the same averages being applied to public workers.
.
If my arguement was what you think it was.
My arguement is that you can make anything look good with averages.
Peadar
17/01/2007, 4:10 PM
Here's (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/05/07/story14016.asp) a little article about public sector pay...
paul_oshea
17/01/2007, 4:15 PM
in fairness how can you provide stats for the whole entry level of the private sector to compare to the 21k mentioned by bohs? the new minimum wage would work out around 17k for an average week, but an entry level pharmacist might earn 50k or more pete's point was that for whatever he does he would be better off, or not much worse off all things considered, in the public sector
Thats why im saying directly you could only really compare Civil servants to Consultants, where they both do directly the same sort of work at different points in time.
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 4:17 PM
Thats why im saying directly you could only really compare Civil servants to Consultants, where they both do directly the same sort of work at different points in time.
Well then you'd have to say the civil servants would come of worse than the consultants.
Here's (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/05/07/story14016.asp) a little article about public sector pay...
Wages in the public sector rose by more than 6 per cent last year, bringing average pay in the public sector (excluding health) to more than €45,000 a year, compared to the average industrial wage of €31,000.
We've already dealt with this at length:
Here (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=606390&postcount=55) and here (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=606392&postcount=56). :rolleyes:
paul_oshea
17/01/2007, 4:23 PM
Well then you'd have to say the civil servants would come of worse than the consultants.
Not if you include everything BOHS infairness.
kingdom hoop
17/01/2007, 4:33 PM
[QUOTE]However the numbers of low pay jobs are also rising. So in effect the wealth gap is increasing.
Mostly foreign workers though? allowing irish people the opportunity to climb the wage ladder? not saying i dont care about foreigners but for one the unions havent actively sought to recruit them and secondly they are happy with their wage in comparison to what they'd get at home and a good few are likely to leave in the short term.
On minimum wage, yes but prices are lower in most of those countries.
it would be better to lower prices than increase wages, but thats all getting very complicated and would mean less tax income for the government to roll around in. by the way has the abolition of the groceries order had much effect i wonder
Calcio Jack
17/01/2007, 4:52 PM
This debate seems to be missing one major issue, that is the hidden but hugely beneficial perk that public servants accrue under their pension schemes.
Again at a risk of been accused of generalising a civil servant gets gratis a pension of 2/3rd of their final salary upon retirement. The cost of funding that (assuming a salary of €35k) if you worked in the private sector is €12k per year assuming you started funding for it at age 20 annd retired at 60.
So when are the private sector workers going to cop on and realise that they are been hammered on 2 fronts ,firstly by their own employers who are forcing them to fund their own pensions and secondly by seeing their contribution to the exchequer used to fund the pension arrangement for ooo's of civil servants who for the most part don't pay any pension contributions or top rate 6% prsi...... so in real terms if you examine it closely Civil Servants do receive a better slary than your avarage private worker, they also enjoy much better terms & conditions (eg flexi time, length of hols and of course for life job security)... we're operatring a two tier society for workers and don't expect any of our politicians to change that since they of course also benefit from the aforementioned perks in addition to their unique extra one ie they are entitled to receive half of their salary tax free !!
How can you directly compare someone who leaves school does a few entry exams
Thought you said civil service jobs were hard to get. :rolleyes:
This debate seems to be missing one major issue, that is the hidden but hugely beneficial perk that public servants accrue under their pension schemes.
Again at a risk of been accused of generalising a civil servant gets gratis a pension of 2/3rd of their final salary upon retirement. The cost of funding that (assuming a salary of €35k) if you worked in the private sector is €12k per year assuming you started funding for it at age 20 annd retired at 60.
Good point which I tried to raise but I do not have the figures. I am not sure how you worked it out but little chance my contributory pension has any hope of matching anything like that.
21k for starting job out of school seems quiet good. Add on 1/3rd free pension top up plus various perks like career breaks.
rebs23
17/01/2007, 6:08 PM
We've already dealt with this at length:
Here (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=606390&postcount=55) and here (http://www.foot.ie/showpost.php?p=606392&postcount=56). :rolleyes:
Yes indeed we have and you have completely refused to accept the statistics available from both the CSO and the ESRI on comparisons on a like for like basis. I have posted links on this before and will search for them again.
Are you really trying to convince us that the overall terms and conditions of employment available in the public sector are lower than those in the private sector? The Pension provisions, the leave provisions, security of employment, the seemingly inability to get sacked, the increases above partnership, etc, etc.
I thought this would prove your point and use it as an argument in favour of unionisation!
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 9:03 PM
so in real terms if you examine it closely Civil Servants do receive a better slary than your avarage private worker, they also enjoy much better terms & conditions (eg flexi time, length of hols and of course for life job security)
So you're including pensions? Well if I make it to retirement I reckon I'll deserve it. As for you guys moaning about it, get off your asses get organised and fight for it!
Are you really trying to convince us that the overall terms and conditions of employment available in the public sector are lower than those in the private sector? The Pension provisions, the leave provisions, security of employment, the seemingly inability to get sacked, the increases above partnership, etc, etc.
What increases above partnership. Are you talking benchmarking? For the average CO that meant an average days bus fare per week! As for the pensions, see above. Inability to get sacked? Well if the prophets of the private sector here are to be believed they'd walk into another job tomorrow if they got sacked and we'd be unemployable so maybe its just as well. :p
If we're talking pay though, and you can't pay your mortgage or your bills on the basis of something you're going to get in 35 years time, then the figures I produced talk for themselves.
I'm against benchmarking as it happens but not for the same reason as you lot. Because its rubbish and does nothing but increase the wage gap between the lower and higher civil servants. Its simply not a good deal for the lower grades. The reports that proliferate the media of public sector "pay bonazas" are propaganda to drive a wedge between private and public sector workers. Its so, if they decide not to pay us phase two of benchmarking, the public will support them.
various perks like career breaks.
I know people in the private sector who took career breaks.
If we're talking pay though, and you can't pay your mortgage or your bills on the basis of something you're going to get in 35 years time, then the figures I produced talk for themselves.
Only someone who did not have to pay for his pension would make some a ludicrous statement. People in the real world need to take money out of their wages & put into a thing called a pension fund so they can plan for their retirement. :rolleyes:
Public service non-contributory pensions are easily worth an extra 20% on top of gross pay. Its so good few private sector people could afford unless company was contributing a large chunk.
I'm against benchmarking as it happens but not for the same reason as you lot. Because its rubbish and does nothing but increase the wage gap between the lower and higher civil servants. Its simply not a good deal for the lower grades. The reports that proliferate the media of public sector "pay bonazas" are propaganda to drive a wedge between private and public sector workers.
Benchmarking was "introduced" as someone said couldn't fill public service jobs as they under paid. Now too many people applying for public sector jobs.
Unions confuse me. If they are democratic surely the majority (lower grades) will vote for a pay deal that favours them over the minority (higher grades). :confused:
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 9:32 PM
Only someone who did not have to pay for his pension would make some a ludicrous statement.
Eh I do pay for my pension. Would you like to see my payslips? It comes out fortnightly. Plus as I was 28 when I joined the service, I will have to buy back years, I.E. increase my contributions to get my full pension. At the moment I can't afford that but I'll have to start thinking about it soon. Pete, you should get your facts straight before getting the villagers together with the torches and the pitchforks and the yeehaw we's gonna lynch us some pretty boy civil servants. :rolleyes:
Unions confuse me. If they are democratic surely the majority (lower grades) will vote for a pay deal that favours them over the minority (higher grades). :confused:
Because they are sold a pup by the leadership and told A. They are getting a good deal or B. There is no alternative.
Eh I do pay for my pension.
Therefore yours is not a non-contributory pension. :)
Because they are sold a pup by the leadership and told A. They are getting a good deal or B. There is no alternative.
Union members exploited by their leaders? Seems to be no point to unions then is no real vote? ;)
BohsPartisan
17/01/2007, 10:28 PM
Union members exploited by their leaders? Seems to be no point to unions then is no real vote? ;)
Getting a sense of Deja Vu here Pete. Didn't we have the corrupt union leaders discussion before and agree on something for a change.
Where I disagree is when you say we should abandon our unions. For one, if we did we'd be forgetting about any of the "perks" you mentioned, any payrises etc. Secondly, I and people like me believe in reclaiming the unions, fighting to make them more democratic and actually do what they're supposed to.
Calcio Jack
18/01/2007, 7:23 AM
[QUOTE=BohsPartisan;606746]Eh I do pay for my pension. Would you like to see my payslips? It comes out fortnightly. Plus as I was 28 when I joined the service, I will have to buy back years, I.E. increase my contributions to get my full pension. At the moment I can't afford that but I'll have to start thinking about it soon. Pete, you should get your facts straight before getting the villagers together with the torches and the pitchforks and the yeehaw we's gonna lynch us some pretty boy civil servants. :rolleyes:
You may indeed make a contribution towards your pension... my main point was to take an example of two people aged 20 , one commences working in the p/sector the other in the public sector. That is a like for like comparison and it is clar from it that the public sector employee is much better off. IMO you have to take into account the "benefit" of not having to pay any (as is the case for a huge % of public servs) cost of their pension as equating to salary. Indeed during the last benchmarking examination, one well known economist resigned from the working party becasue the terms of ref didn't include the "value" of pension accruing free to public sector workers... for what it is worth on average that value works out at around 30% of ones salary.
This argument has gotten way off track.
For me a couple of things are clear.
1) Private sector pay is substantially better
2) Public sector conditions are better (despite what Pete said in the original thread ;) )
The thread came about because peadar thinks Public sector workers are on a permanent doss, which is patently untrue. As is the fact that all private sector workers are hard working honest citizens. There are good and bad on each side and the problems affecting the public service plague all large organisations.
BohsPartisan
18/01/2007, 7:58 AM
IMO you have to take into account the "benefit" of not having to pay any (as is the case for a huge % of public servs) cost of their pension as equating to salary.
Who doesn't have to pay any of the cost of their pension? Not civil servants. I know people who have been in the service since the '60's and they all pay.
1) Private sector pay is substantially better
2) Public sector conditions are better
Spot on, though or conditions are constantly being eroded via "modernisation" (I'd call it "victorianisation")
Pete, I get the impression you'd like a leveling of the playing field when it comes to conditions between the two sectors. I agree, thing is I feel you'd like to drag us down to the Private sector's level where as I say, people in the Private sector should get organised and bring themselves up to our level.
The thread came about because peadar thinks Public sector workers are on a permanent doss, which is patently untrue. As is the fact that all private sector workers are hard working honest citizens. There are good and bad on each side and the problems affecting the public service plague all large organisations.
A sublime moment of clarity.
Pete, I get the impression you'd like a leveling of the playing field when it comes to conditions between the two sectors. I agree, thing is I feel you'd like to drag us down to the Private sector's level where as I say, people in the Private sector should get organised and bring themselves up to our level.
Not really I'd just like some realism. Public Sector people shouldn't be claiming they down trodden & underpaid just the same as the private sector. There is absolutely no doubt that the public sector have better conditions with better pensions, will always get a pay increase & basically jobs for life of some description. On the other hand depending on the job some private sector people may be able to get bonuses & while they might have drop in salary or pay freeze in the bad times they can get big increases in the good times.
I dislike benchmarking as it tried to equate the public sector to the private but they two different animals. What private sector job can you match a teacher to when he/she gets 4 months holidays. Obviously schools can't open for 11 months a year but likewise can't expect to earn same as someone with 1 month holiday.
BohsPartisan
18/01/2007, 10:40 AM
Not really I'd just like some realism. Public Sector people shouldn't be claiming they down trodden & underpaid just the same as the private sector.
No one was claiming that. This started from your ridiculous claim that we are better paid.
On the other hand depending on the job some private sector people may be able to get bonuses & while they might have drop in salary or pay freeze in the bad times they can get big increases in the good times.
And thats why they need to organise and fight against these attacks. Workers did it in the past they can do it again.
What private sector job can you match a teacher to when he/she gets 4 months holidays. Obviously schools can't open for 11 months a year but likewise can't expect to earn same as someone with 1 month holiday.
Teachers have one of the most important jobs in society. Do you expect them to have to live four months a year without pay? Who would do the job then?
Teachers have one of the most important jobs in society. Do you expect them to have to live four months a year without pay? Who would do the job then?
Never suggested that. Just saying that a teacher (not picking on them, just use as example as a different job) can't get same gross salary as a fulltime person.
Pete
and others, your whole problem here in this discussion is that you believe that there are two, count them 2, types of job. There are a myriad of different jobs - and related terms of employment in what you call the 'public sector'. It renders most of your points meaningless. The differences are so vast between various jobholders that to draw conclusions based on public/private split is a futile exercise.
BohsPartisan
18/01/2007, 11:16 AM
Never suggested that. Just saying that a teacher (not picking on them, just use as example as a different job) can't get same gross salary as a fulltime person.
Well then you are saying that. If teachers get less pay, people will stop being teachers and we'll have big problems in society.
kingdom hoop
18/01/2007, 11:36 AM
speaking of big problems in society, i came across an article yesterday from the world economic freedom report that criticises labour markets in western europe and amongst other things is critical of public sector pensions. be wary though, bohs partisan et al this carries a health warning as it takes a free market capitalist viewpoint, anti government intervention. its quite long so you'd probabaly be better off printing it and reading it at lunch http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads/Index2007.pdf pages 45-54 of 425
Dodge
18/01/2007, 11:46 AM
There is absolutely no doubt that the public sector have better conditions with better pensions, will always get a pay increase & basically jobs for life of some description
I know dozens who didn't get pay rises (different departments) due to performance and I know a couple who've been sacked so your arguement is out the window pete
BohsPartisan
18/01/2007, 12:33 PM
be wary though, bohs partisan et al this carries a health warning as it takes a free market capitalist viewpoint, anti government intervention.
Yeah these right-wing economic "think tanks" are always urging attacks on public sector jobs. In France, Britain, Germany and other European countries governments have been acting on this "advise". The result has been that all accross Europe, sections of society that once saw themselves as middle-class have become the most militant sections of the working class. They haven't stepped it up here yet but its only a matter of time.
NY Hoop
18/01/2007, 3:00 PM
Good point which I tried to raise but I do not have the figures. I am not sure how you worked it out but little chance my contributory pension has any hope of matching anything like that.
21k for starting job out of school seems quiet good. Add on 1/3rd free pension top up plus various perks like career breaks.
Perk is too strong of a word there. Private sector employees can also take career breaks in some instances. And you do know that career breaks are unpaid?!
Bohspartisan gandon must be very quiet these days:p
KOH
BohsPartisan
18/01/2007, 3:30 PM
Perk is too strong of a word there. Private sector employees can also take career breaks in some instances. And you do know that career breaks are unpaid?!
Bohspartisan gandon must be very quiet these days:p
KOH
Not in Gandon, not anymore anyway. In AMD.
How do you know me?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.