Public v Private Sector Debate [Archive] - Page 3

Limeref

19/01/2007, 11:41 PM

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.

A civil servant who started work post 6 April 1995 (a lot of civil servants posting here) earning 35k with 40 years service is entitled to a pension of 7k, they are also entitled to just under 11k contributary pension (if they meet the requirements) - this element was not taken into account by Calcio Jack.

An EO retiring on 45k (same conditions as above) will be entitled to a pension of 11.5k, they are also entitled to just under 11k contributary pension.

Carclio Jacks figures are way off!

Macy

22/01/2007, 9:59 AM

A few things...

1) Pensions
Civil Servants pay into their pensions. These are defined benefit schemes. Many in the Private Sector also have defined benefit schemes, it is not restricted to Public Servants. Indeed, that is what the recent strike in Bank Of Ireland (that well known arm of the public service) was about - they were trying to close the defined benefit scheme for new members.

People seem to be confusing contributory and non contributory pensions. These are the state scheme's paid into based on your PRSI rate. In recent years, new starters in the Civil and Public Service pay stamps at the A1 rate, and so contribute to a state pension too, with a reduction in their company pension.

If Private Sector workers want to look for inequities in their pensions, they would perhaps be better looking at the top of their own organisations. Massive pensions, little contribution, and most definitely defined benefit.

2) Organisation of Foreign Workers
Can only speak for my own union, but organisation of immigrant workers is seen as the big challenge at the moment. Leaflets are produced in several different languages with the focus on workers rights and health and safety more so than recruitment. It is about the foreign workers having their legal entitlements and not being exploited - under cutting of agreed rates and conditions is exploitation.

3) Mismanagement of the Public Service
The top of the Civil and Public Service are the ministers responsible for which ever Department. The top Civil Servants are Political Appointee's. Given which party has been in Government for 18 of the last 20 years, you just have to look around the cabinet table for any mismanagement of the Public Service. Indeed, political interference is rife in decisions and recruitments right down as far as clerical officers - hence the push by Unions for competence based selection processes.

dahamsta

22/01/2007, 11:16 AM

Nice post Macy.

rebs23

22/01/2007, 11:57 AM

Here's a link to a detailed analysis of the differentials between public and private sector pay and pensions. Doesn't cover issues such as security of employment and other conditions such as leave entitlements etc but it is one of the better articles on the matter;

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006397.shtml

pete

22/01/2007, 12:19 PM

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006397.shtml

O'Leary says that the Public Sector Benchmarking Body never published its research results and at no stage in its 278-page report did it explicitly state or opine that public sector pay had fallen behind that in the private sector.

In a weekly market comment, Davy said that figures from the CSO (Central Statistics Office) indicated that average earnings in the public sector are now more than �43,000 a year. This compares with �33,500 in the private sector (industrial, construction, distribution and other sectors).

Interesting figures. Why do we have benchmarking?

Dodge

22/01/2007, 1:07 PM

FFS pete, how many times have you been told that thos figures include the very top civil servants earning well into 6 figures. The average wage for the vast, vast majorityof civil servants is lower than their private sector equivalents.

The government appointed public servants macy mention accountted for the biggest increases in the last round of benchmarking, and of course it was politcally motivated.

pete

22/01/2007, 1:50 PM

FFS pete, how many times have you been told that thos figures include the very top civil servants earning well into 6 figures.

Are you saying that private sector averages do not include high earners into the 6 figures? :confused:

The average wage for the vast, vast majority of civil servants is lower than their private sector equivalents.

I was criticised for not backing up my claims so I presume you can back that up? :p

rebs23

22/01/2007, 1:52 PM

If you had read the report and the article it clearly states "civil servants earned more than 13 per cent more than their private sector counterparts on a like for like basis in 2001 ", "another discovery was that this differnential was significantly larger at the bottom than the top" which is in complete contradiction to the claims made here.

Another point made was that since 2001 this differntial was made even larger by benchmarking.

Even Joan Bruton (Labour spokeswoman on Finance) called for benchmarking to be made much more transparent.

Dodge

22/01/2007, 1:58 PM

Are you saying that private sector averages do not include high earners into the 6 figures? :confused:
I'm saying they do, and they also include people on minimum wage. A far better survey would be comparing like with like. Officer worker to office worker. People who work on public counters in public service with people who work in public counters in banks etc.

I was criticised for not backing up my claims so I presume you can back that up? :p

When I get the chance.

rebs23, the point above is the smae answer I'd give you. On a completely like for like basis (qualifications, experience) public servants earn less.

pete

22/01/2007, 2:06 PM

On a completely like for like basis (qualifications, experience) public servants earn less.

Qualifications don't matter a bit. Just because someone has a Masters in Celtic Studies & working on Social Welfare counter does not mean you can compare with private sector employee with Economics Masters working as an Investment Banker. You compare job role v job role which is where rebs23 quote comes in & this is directly from the Benchmarking Report.

BohsPartisan

22/01/2007, 2:44 PM

Pete likes to be selective in what he sees in our posts and what he doesn't so theres no point in providing him with the facts. He'll just ignore them if they don't fit his arguement.

pete

22/01/2007, 2:54 PM

Pete likes to be selective in what he sees in our posts and what he doesn't so theres no point in providing him with the facts. He'll just ignore them if they don't fit his arguement.

Yes, I ignore union researched facts as they biased. I think if anything the benchmark board biased towards the public sector as they constructed it.

BohsPartisan

22/01/2007, 3:03 PM

I never quoted any Union researched facts. All pay rates I gave you were from official departmental documents which legally have to be correct. :rolleyes:
Your tactic in a debate is always, when some inconvinient facts get in the way of your arguement, wait a few weeks then make the same arguement again hoping everyone has forgotten that it was refuted.

rebs23

22/01/2007, 3:36 PM

http://www.ireland.com/business/economy/economy1403.htm
Another analysis of the differences claiming that public sector workers at the lower skill level are better paid than their private sector counterparts.

http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2088

Another report from the ESRI on the same issue with largely the same conclusions on a like for like basis Public Sector earn more.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006397.shtml
Same as above.

And finally the most recent document from the CSO on the matter
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/psempearn.pdf

Is the argument settled yet or are we going to go round in circles all day?

Lads you should be rejoicing in your status! Accept your privilaged position at the top of the pile amongst the working classes!!:) Why deny it?

dahamsta

22/01/2007, 5:39 PM

Peadar's twaddle moved here (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=51265).

CollegeTillIDie

22/01/2007, 8:29 PM

Ok Peadar

In 1995 the conditions of employment of Civil Servants changed and people recruited from then on paid A1 Class PRSI Contributions. This means that over time , unlike Civil Servants recruited before that date, these new Civil Servants would be entitled to the full range of Social Welfare Benefits.

Previously recruited Civil Servants paid Class B1 which did not entitle them to many Social Welfare Payments including Unemployment Benefit . This meant they could not be made redundant unlike the ones recruited since 1995.

Which simply means that the Civil Service has built into it's make up the capacity to downsize in future just like your employer will be able to do at some future point throwing you onto the scrapheap, and get the job done cheaper in India :D

Macy

23/01/2007, 7:12 AM

CSO (Central Statistics Office) indicated that average earnings in the public sector are now more than �43,000 a year.
Pete, I gave you more credit than to keep going back to the discredited arguements using average pay as the basis.

Macy

23/01/2007, 7:41 AM

http://www.ireland.com/business/economy/economy1403.htm
Another analysis of the differences claiming that public sector workers at the lower skill level are better paid than their private sector counterparts.

It says that this is the case in other markets, without giving any figures for Ireland to back up that claim, and that isn't in the report your man is analysing - he's just throwing that in himself.

http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=2088
Another report from the ESRI on the same issue with largely the same conclusions on a like for like basis Public Sector earn more.

A report on Graduates over 3 years, so a small sector, and involves a lot of professions that have little scope for increase. e.g. Teachers and Nurses who may start at a higher level, but have very restricted grades. Incidentally, also says in the conclusions that you can't use average pay as a comparison.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006397.shtml
Same as above.

Yeah, lots of headlines, and lots averages (pay, pensions etc), and research by the same bloke above who essentially says that they're making assumptions on data that wasn't even collected for the purpose that they used it for.

And finally the most recent document from the CSO on the matter
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/current/psempearn.pdf
Could you point out where the comparison to equivalent Private Sector employments is in this document, or are you going on the average pay at the top, which one of your earlier links said was wrong to use?

Peadar

23/01/2007, 8:17 AM

...just like your employer will be able to do at some future point throwing you onto the scrapheap, and get the job done cheaper in India :D

That doesn't bother me because they'd have to move all the Indians to Ireland, in order to replace people in my profession. True to your nature, you make false assumptions about me.

Dodge

23/01/2007, 9:31 AM

And you don't make any assumptions at all Peadar?

Peadar

23/01/2007, 10:08 AM

And you don't make any assumptions at all Peadar?

I'm better place to make assumptions about a sector that I've served for 8 years, than someone who has never met me, is to make assumptions about me.

Dodge

23/01/2007, 10:13 AM

Relax, I was kidding...

pete

23/01/2007, 10:34 AM

Can someone point me those surveys which said public service pay less than private? I thought there were some links but did they get moved?

If we do not use average wages then surely need to compare like with like?

Public Sector Pay 20% higher than Private Sector (http://www.irishjobs.ie/clients/workwise.asp?URL=http://www.irishjobs.ie/ForumWW/WWIndividualArticle.aspx?ParentID=67&CID=164&ForumTypeID=2333)

Public sector workers are becoming the new rich with average annual earnings of �46,000. More and more professionals are turning to the public sector for financial security and work life balance.

A report by Davy Stockbrokers last year found that public sector pay was, on average, about 20 per cent higher than private sector pay. The average public servant now earns more than �45,000 a year, compared to the average industrial wage of �31,000. And figures just released from the CSO confirm their annual earnings are just under �46,000.

To claim that the public sector is top loaded with high earners is a ludicrous assumption as this suggests that no high earners in the private sector.

BohsPartisan

23/01/2007, 10:53 AM

To claim that the public sector is top loaded with high earners is a ludicrous assumption as this suggests that no high earners in the private sector.

But thats exactly what your link shows!

Garda
�1,132.75 a week

Prison officer
�1,165.97 a week

Administrative civil servant
�808.72 a week

Primary school teacher
�821.38 a week

Secondary school teacher
�1,000 a week

Defence forces
�736.72 a week

These are all special cases. Also factor in TD's and particularly cabinet members.
I'm not sure what an administrative civil servant is supposed to be I.E. are they talking about all grades?
I have told you what CO's and EO's earn, and they are the majority of civil servants. As far as I'm concerned that ends the pay arguement. It is fact that the majority of people working in the civil service start out on �415 per week and over the course of 15 years will recieve incriments to bring them up to �672 per week.
An executive officer starts at �548 per week and can work up to �870 over 15 years.
However at the higher end of the service things are very different:
SECRETARY GENERAL �197,233

DEPUTY SECRETARY �157,786

ASSISTANT SECRETARY �116,462 �122,095 �127,732 �133,367

If you doubt this you can email payscales@finance.gov.ie to hear it from the horses mouth.

pete

23/01/2007, 11:00 AM

ESRI Report (http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/20060926150420/QEC2006Aut_SA_OConnell.pdf) (pdf)

I think we can all agree the ESRI an Independent Body so as unbiased we going to get. According to this report in 2003:
- Public pay was 39% higher per hour when compared graduate with 3 years experience.
- Even when compare gross monthly wages its 19% higher as private work 5 more hours per week than public.
- The wage differential is higher for women over men.

Can someone point me towards that civil service job site again?

Peadar

23/01/2007, 11:01 AM

If you doubt this you can email payscales@finance.gov.ie to hear it from the horses mouth.

Sending an e-mail to a civil servant can only yeild a biased response!

BohsPartisan

23/01/2007, 11:03 AM

Sending an e-mail to a civil servant can only yeild a biased response!

Don't be ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Macy

23/01/2007, 1:02 PM

I think we can all agree the ESRI an Independent Body so as unbiased we going to get.
Unbiased as we are going to get, but not unbiased, but anyway...

A simple comparison of average earnings in the two sectors can be misleading because of the underlying differences in the composition of the two sectors
So can we take it you won't be using average pay comparisons again?

Over half of all public sector workers are in professional occupations compared to about 12% in the private sector, and about half of public sector workers have a third level qualification, compared to one quarter of private sector workers
So public sector workers are more qualified, so likely that they can be earning less like for like against private sector equivalents.

It should be acknowledged that our analysis is confined to the early stages of careers. As such, it tells us nothing about subsequent wage movements, and how the public sector wage gap may develop later in graduates career
The pay scale structure certainly restricts wage growth. Take for example accountancy - you'll get an extra increment for qualifying in the public sector, but in private industry you'll get a significant promotion. Or teachers and nurses for example, who have limited opportunity to move to different pay scales, especially in 3 years. 3 years is an extremely short time frame. Not really enough to take into account post graduate professional qualifications. Make it 10 years and then there would be merit to the study.

pete

23/01/2007, 1:45 PM

So can we take it you won't be using average pay comparisons again?

Come on Macy. I was accused of using the same line about averages so I did my research & proved conclusively with numbers not opinions.

The ESRI compared people with same experience, same education & found massive differences in pay. 39% higher wage per hour is massive. Even at gross salry 19% is huge. This just compares basic salary & does not include anything about perks etc... Is this not what you asked for? You cannot say public sector restricted by certain factors without mentioning the advantages - this is why the ESRI picked graduate with 3 years experience.

:confused:

I honestly never expected pay difference to be large & not know why so many people joining the public sector in recent years. I would not have thought about the public sector before but certainly would consider now.

BohsPartisan

23/01/2007, 1:48 PM

This just compares basic salary & does not include anything about perks etc.
What PERKS???

Did you look at the pay rates I showed above? Yet you choose to ignore the FACTS again!

Macy

23/01/2007, 2:48 PM

Come on Macy. I was accused of using the same line about averages so I did my research & proved conclusively with numbers not opinions.

On that I was just making the point that even the ERSI say that average pay is a nonsense. They'd be better telling IBEC and media though I suppose

The ESRI compared people with same experience, same education & found massive differences in pay. 39% higher wage per hour is massive. Even at gross salry 19% is huge. This just compares basic salary & does not include anything about perks etc... Is this not what you asked for? You cannot say public sector restricted by certain factors without mentioning the advantages - this is why the ESRI picked graduate with 3 years experience.
I've always argued there's advantages to working in the public sector - it's quality of life over pay. Certainly at my grade with my qualifications. I really don't think 3 years is enough of a timescale to prove this one way or the other tbh.

I honestly never expected pay difference to be large & not know why so many people joining the public sector in recent years. I would not have thought about the public sector before but certainly would consider now.
It isn't. I doubt you're within 3 years of graduation for starters, but go for it and see.

pete

23/01/2007, 6:24 PM

It isn't. I doubt you're within 3 years of graduation for starters, but go for it and see.

I would have thought i'd proven my immaturity by now. :D

rebs23

23/01/2007, 7:15 PM

Lads point to the independant reports that say Public Sector is less than Private Sector. Please post links from indelpendant analysis such as that from the ESRI, CSO etc, etc. You can't because it doesn't exist.
We have been asked to post links to back up points and arguments.

Heres a final quote on the issue from Industrial Relations News. I can't post a link because its subscription based magazine for those working in the field but its generally accepted that its very trade union friendly to say the least.

All trade union officials will also privately admit to this differential "on a like for like basis" and also that it is causing tensions within their own unions.

"New pay survey points to 40% public/private pay gap

TONY DOBBINS
A major new national pay survey by the Central Statistics Office suggests that public sector workers earn 40% more on average than private sector workers.

The finding in the CSO National Employment Survey 2003

The finding that public sector employees are, on average, much better paid than private sector employees, was also the conclusion in a study carried out by economist Jim O�Leary and colleagues at Maynooth University in 2000. The authors concluded that the pay differential between public and private sector employees in the year 2000, in terms of average gross monthly earnings, amounted to 42% (see IRN 18/04).

BETTER QUALIFIED
However, the authors accepted that allowance should be made for the fact that public servants tend to be older, more experienced and better educated than employees in the private sector, on average. They �also tend to work in more highly skilled jobs and in bigger establishments.� But even taking this into account, public sector employees, in 2000, enjoyed a monthly earnings premium of almost 11%, it was argued.

And this was back in 2000, before the main chunk of the benchmarking pay hikes came on stream in January 2004."

CollegeTillIDie

23/01/2007, 10:32 PM

Well one fact is that the Board of Directors of many private sector companies award themselves sick bonuses in good years well into six figures. This is at the same time as their workers are not that well paid.

The Department Secretaries and Higher level Civil Servants do not have those
when tax revenues are surprisingly buoyant.

TonyD

23/01/2007, 10:33 PM

Holy Cow :eek: I've just discovered this thread, and I can't believe some of the rubbish spouted by the private sector brigade. Civil servants are all useless dossers, while all private sectors workers are models of diligence, professionalism and dedication ? Do you really believe that nonsense lads. Cop on, please. The very fact that so many of the private sector warriors believe that civil servants pay no pension contributions just summed up your ignorance for me. ALL Civil Servants pay towards their pension. As someone sensibly pointed out, there are hard workers, and dossers, in both sectors, but I'll willingly put the standards of professionalism, dedication and ability of ANY department or section I've worked in (and yes, there have been a few before anyone asks:p ) up against anything the Private Sector has to offer. Contrary to the belief of all you little Michael O'Learys out there, Civil Servants have workloads, and deadlines, just like everyone else. (Plus, we have to put up with attitudes like those on display from some people here, not to mention remarks like "I pay your wages you know" - those immortal words were actually issued to me once believe it or not) One more point BTW, Peadar, you do realise that if you're working under contract for a Government Dept (which seems to be your situation unless I've read your posts wrong) that ultimately that's taxpayers money you're getting. For Shame, how can you live with yourself:D

(btw - I neither read or replied to this during working hours - far too busy)

Macy

24/01/2007, 7:54 AM

Lads point to the independant reports that say Public Sector is less than Private Sector.
The bench marking process was the biggest investigation carried out on a like for like basis. And it was criticised for not delivering enough by many public sector workers - hence the next round which may deliver no increase if like for like it's found that the public sector is better off. We've had the process that has proved our case, it's just the right wing and business organisations that haven't accepted it.

All trade union officials will also privately admit to this differential "on a like for like basis" and also that it is causing tensions within their own unions.
Well a fella from IBEC told me in the pub that they know it's a nonsense arguement and it's only a stick to beat unionised employments with.

on average
:rolleyes:

[B]But even taking this into account, public sector employees, in 2000, enjoyed a monthly earnings premium of almost 11%, it was argued.
It was argued, but not backed up by any stats, clearly. Well certainly none that they were confident enough to use.

BohsPartisan

24/01/2007, 9:32 AM

Lads point to the independant reports that say Public Sector is less than Private Sector. Please post links from indelpendant analysis such as that from the ESRI, CSO etc, etc. You can't because it doesn't exist.

I gave you actual pay rates. I gave you an email address for further info.
Secondly the ESRI is not "independant". It is an ideologically driven right wing "think tank"

pete

24/01/2007, 10:32 AM

BohsPartisan

24/01/2007, 11:20 AM

I provided the best most unbiased report on like for like comparison & still the public service lobby move the goal posts.
In your own biased opinion :p

You can provide rates of pay for Admin Secretarys but what is the equivalent roile in the private sector?

you've lost me there Pete, what is an admin secretary?

pete

24/01/2007, 12:14 PM

you've lost me there Pete, what is an admin secretary?

You provided some figures for various grades (i forget the names). I was just saying those grades & roles mean nothing to me.

BohsPartisan

24/01/2007, 12:18 PM

Clerical Officers - the majority grade in the CS, do most of the work. It varies a lot and ranges from public office duties to data entry to data extraction to IT support.
Executive Officer - lower middle management
Higher Executive Officer - Higher middle managaement

rebs23

24/01/2007, 2:07 PM

Again I'll ask for links to analysis, preferably from independant bodies. Back up your arguments with facts.

As for Bohspartisan claims that the ESRI are a right wing think thank. I got a good laugh out of that one.

Macy, Dodge, Bohspartisan you all work in the Public Sector and you all have a vested financial interest in clinging to an argument that Public Sector workers are worse off than those in the private sector because Benchmarking 2 is currently underway, but yet you can't back it up.

I am especially suprised at your arguments Bohspartisan as you are constantly preaching to us about the glories of a unionised workforce and the one area of the workforce that is highly unionised and militant (Public Sector)is clearly better off financially than the private sector where union density is down to around 20%, if that. Surely these stats prove your point!

I also cannot understand why you don't make the point that you get paid more because you are worth it! I know I do and would if anyone said it about me!:)

Maybe you work harder, maybe you are very productive...

BohsPartisan

24/01/2007, 2:21 PM

Again I'll ask for links to analysis, preferably from independant bodies. Back up your arguments with facts.

As for Bohspartisan claims that the ESRI are a right wing think thank. I got a good laugh out of that one.

1. There is no such thing as an independant body. All of them have vested interests.
2. I gave you hard facts.
3. The ESRI is driven by right wing economics (cut this, privatise that) therefore what I said is correct.

I am especially suprised at your arguments Bohspartisan as you are constantly preaching to us about the glories of a unionised workforce and the one area of the workforce that is highly unionised and militant (Public Sector)
I've seen more lambs that are more militant than the leadership of my union.

Macy

24/01/2007, 2:57 PM

Macy, Dodge, Bohspartisan you all work in the Public Sector and you all have a vested financial interest in clinging to an argument that Public Sector workers are worse off than those in the private sector because Benchmarking 2 is currently underway, but yet you can't back it up.

But it was backed up in Benchmarking 1, which was independent and saw increases in pay in the Public Sector to bring it in line with the Private Sector. It remains the only in depth study that has been done on Private v Public. If there is no wage gap or it's in favour of the Public sector Benchmarking 2 will show this.

Your ERSI study was a small group over a small period. You've nothing else except average comparisons that ERSI say are pointless

you are constantly preaching to us about the glories of a unionised workforce and the one area of the workforce that is highly unionised and militant (Public Sector)is clearly better off financially than the private sector where union density is down to around 20%

If that's true, then the private sector workers should re-organise and stop voting for right wing Governments. And you're deluded if you think the CPSU, PSEU and AHCPS (who essentially negotiate the pay scales for the whole public service) are militant.

rebs23

24/01/2007, 3:19 PM

But it was backed up in Benchmarking 1, which was independent
Your ERSI study was a small group over a small period. .

Benchmarking was not an independant analysis but a bribe for public sector industrial relations peace. It was not backed up by any stats or figures and its deliberations and results were never published or made available to the public. As I have quoted earlier even Labour have called for a more thorough and transparent process for Benchmarking 1.
It will be interesting though the results of Benchmarking 2 and whether it is more transparent and public.

The ESRI study was conducted at a time before a lot of the Benchmarking increases kicked in so the differentials as of now would be even greater.

As for being deluded well the only delusions in evidence in this thread is the consistant claim (unsubstantiated) that "on a like for like basis" Public Sector workers are worse off than their Private Sector colleagues.

pete

24/01/2007, 3:44 PM

I also cannot understand why you don't make the point that you get paid more because you are worth it! I know I do and would if anyone said it about me!:)

Good point.

rebs23 can take the baton from here as i'm off to Davos so see if can exploit the masses a bit more... :p

btw can't believe the credibility of the ESRI is in question. They are not political & just as likely to produce report backing up the government of the time as criticising them...