Printable View
RTEQuote:
The average wage in the public sector grew by 9.3 percent in the year to last September - almost four times the rate of inflation during the same period.
Time to end public sector banchmarking & have private sector benchmarking now that public sector wages rising higher? Maybe get the public sector to pay for private sector wage increases?
Also seems little point to National Pay Agreements as the Unions strike when they choose anyway so no benefit.
:rolleyes:well done pete. clownish post of the month.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
public sector benchamrking has ended now pay rates have 'caught up' to close to the private sector equivalent. bear in mind many civil servants were paid close to the minimum wage before this exercise. on the ball there pete :rolleyes:
explain why the public sector (ie the taxpayer) would want to subsidise private industry?
what unions are you talking about? the only public sector strike in recent times were the postmen, who were explicitly not part of partnership/benchmarking. or is this a reference to the industrial unrest in irish ferries?
the original post makes absolutly no reference to public sector unions going on strike - so not sure what your comeback here is about :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
anyway according to:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/w...cqrr9kmbZk.asp
from (31/01/06) "PAY restraint in the public sector has to be given top priority in the upcoming partnership talks, the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) believes.
In its winter bulletin the State think-tank argues this can be achieved without damaging the quality of people joining the service.
Studies show that since 1994 public sector employees earned between 8.3% to 15% a year more than their private sector counterparts."
If the civil servants were on min wages back then, they certainly are not anymore.
I think there should certainly be a restraint by all sides in the new national pay agreement. we can't look at a 'rip off republic' in isolation to the massive pay rises of the past decade. Each pay rise adds an additional expense, which in turn is passed on the customers, who complain about being ripped off (but are happy with their massive pay rise etc etc.)
The problem with benchmarking was that it was far too heavily slanted in favour of higher grades. I'm not sure of exact figures but higher grades got something like 15-18% and lower grades got 6% at one stage...
Vast majority of civil servants still being paid less than private sector equivalents.
Civil Service Pay Scales
A lot of recent reports indicate that the Civil Service Rates are above those in the private sector. The ESRI and other economists have all concluded that the overall package available in the public sector for all grades of employee is above that of the private sector.
The problem with comparing just the pay scales(as dodge has done above) is that you are excluding the pension and sickpay provisions available in the Public Sector, the holidays available and other leave options. It is also very secure with little possibility of being made redundant or getting sacked.
I am suprised this is causing debate as even SIPTU and other Private Sector Unions such as the IBOA are saying that Public Sector pay and conditions are superior to those available in the private sector.
Partnership however has outlived it's usefulness and for the vast majority of workers has little relevance.
Funnt that. The civil service unions say the opposit. Standard leave in the civil service is 21 daysQuote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
They are saying that but no one believes them not the ESRI, their own colleagues in the ICTU or I suspect the general public. Not funny at all really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Not sure its meant to be funny. Any links for a non union view on it?
i find it hard to believe the average paycheck in the private sector is 26k.
its certainly not the white collar average, which we are by and large comparing.
Public sector has leave entitlements that would be very rare in the private sector - can leave for few years & come back to the same job. Can't be fired & will always get soem pay raise. If you include the teachers (i'm sure they included in average pay) then the average annual leave will increase.
"Partnership" has indeed outlived its usefulness a long time ago. I've never received a National Pay wage rate & its only a government-union partnership which represents the minority of the working population. Also the unions are heavily in favour of the public sector as most of its members are part of it.
Can anyone suggest a good reason for national pay agreement?
Earnings from CSO http://www.cso.ie/statistics/public_sector_earnings.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
Earnings in some private sector industries http://www.cso.ie/statistics/earnings_dist_business.htm
Earnings from Banking, Insurance etc http://www.cso.ie/statistics/earning...ilding_soc.htm
Very difficult to use these comparisons as they don't reflect all the benefits associated or cover all the costs associated with Public Sector or Private Sector pay. No doubt about it though Public Sector pay and terms and conditions are superior to those in the Private Sector across the comparible grades.
They reduce the number of silly strikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
But they do not stop strikes which was the mainly selling point originally. Unions are still striking which really is a breech of the terms of the National Pay Agreements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
I think you'll find there is major doubt...Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
Only amongst the Public Sector unions. Independant economic analysts (ESRI), Private Sector Unions have all stated that Public Sector pay is ahead of those in the Private Sector across comparable grades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
If you take into account leave provisions and pension/sick pay provisions then the difference is even more pronounced.
Where does ESRI say that? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
And what are these fantastic leave provisions that civil servants have?Quote:
If you take into account leave provisions and pension/sick pay provisions then the difference is even more pronounced.
I'm against National Partnership Agreements for two main reasons.
1) Partnership doesn't work in practice because Management and the Government only pay it lip service. IBEC inparticular have an appalling record at censuring their members like Irish Ferries or Doyle Concrete
2) Following on from 1, the Unions hands are too tied by the agreement despite clear breaches by Government, Government appointee's and IBEC members. For example, imo there should've been a general strike of the Irish Ferries dispute, but the leaders haven't the balls/ have their hands tied by the national agreements.
On public service pay, I really don't believe it to be true about the figures. You have to remember that public service pay includes areas with massive overtime bills like the Guards and the massive increases for the top civil servants (which includes all the spoofers in Leinster House). No one's telling me that CO's and EO (Grade above CO?) are paid more than their public service equivalents. Also the problem is the higher scales, and the percentage increases by all the wage agreements and benchmarking rather than fixed increases in salaries. My union argued that it should be a fixed amount rather than a percentage - it was IBEC that argued the other way iirc.
You can argue about the other benefits, but definitely a case of swings and roundabouts. Since the mid 90's public and civil servants pay full PRSI and contribute to their pensions, on top of tax. Only benefit is the defined benefit pension. My mates in the private sector have pension schemes with employer contributions as well, get their health insurance paid for, and get bonuses, 53rd week at Christmas, paid for nights out etc etc. Not going to argue Civil and Public servants have it bad, but neither does the private sector in comparison. IBEC/ERSI/Whatever other right wing think tank doesn't compare like with like. Only thing that ever has was the benchmarking process, which because they didn't get the result they wanted, right wing commentators (and private sector workers) have been discrediting since.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/fro...66HM1ESRI.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Article on ESRI's Quarterly economic reports. I think it spells it out quite clearly.:rolleyes:
Uncertified sick leave provisions, certified sick leave provisions, Unpaid career breaks over 5 year periods ( leave twice unpaid for a total of 5 years and get your old job back), generous incremental leave entitlements, etc, etc:rolleyes:
What incremental leave entitlements? So in every other industry in Ireland higher grades don't get more leave than lower ones? Or are you talking about the extra day after 5 years at the same grade?Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
Nice to see you're expressly against the career break provision that was basically brought in for women in the work place. I suppose you're against maternity leave too? And just for information - a job isn't held open for you, you get the next available job at the same grade as what you left at. Someone isn't in temping for five years holding a job open for them, and career breaks (and all other flexible working arrangements) are subject to management approval, and they are often refused.
Can you copy and paste the sick pay benefit differences as outlined in that report? I can't seem to see them in it. Or could you provide another link to where sick leave comparisons are made.
Go to IRN (Indutrial Relations News)http://www.irn.ie/ where they have a breakdown of benefits and pay across various sectors, etc. (you'll have to subscribe)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Don't be ridicolous about me being against Maternity Leave, incremental leave or the provisions for career break. The point I am making is that Public Sector pay and the overall terms and conditions of employment in the Public Sector are superior to the private sector. Thats all!! What you want to with that information is up to yourself. If you choose to get upset and presume my position on it without ever hearing my opinion on what should be done (if anything) about superior Public Sector pay well then........
a couple of questions to the anti-agreement people:
1: are you arguing that the private sectors conditions improve or the public sector joint the race to the bottom?
2: do you accept that the majority of public servants work for less money but more stability than their private sector equivalent?
what are you arguing? collective bargaining again? that will deliver what exactly?
End Benchmarking as serves no purpose. There is no problem getting people to fill public sector jobs - they queuing up for especially peoploe try to leave Dublin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
When you compare like with like there isn't a huge difference in pay levels. Public sector has by far better conditions & basically job for life which makes easier to budget for mortgages etc... For example teacher rates are not great compared with the private sector but only have 8 working months so unrealistic to have same rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
End National collective bargaining. Pay levels decided on conpany by company basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
not sure what you mean here. feck all civil servants want to leave dublin, hence the decentralisation fiasco.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
benchmaking is over pete. finito. done. mission accomplished. over and out. what you are arguing, im not sure? end an exercise thats already ended? :rolleyes:
QUOTE=pete]
When you compare like with like there isn't a huge difference in pay levels. Public sector has by far better conditions & basically job for life which makes easier to budget for mortgages etc... For example teacher rates are not great compared with the private sector but only have 8 working months so unrealistic to have same rates.
End National collective bargaining. Pay levels decided on conpany by company basis.[/QUOTE]
peter, you have argued that the partnership model is useless because most the labout force are out of it anyway and have to negotiate themselves. so whats the problem? its not possible to have people in the dept of transport earning more than those is defence, so you need, by definition public sector collective bargaining.
i have worked in both public and private, in essentially the same job, and conditions are not better by and large in the public - the pension and job security aside. in my instance i got more money and leave in the private.
how do you propose the public sector negotiations would go?
you have picked up on the tail end of an anti-union campaign by IBEC and co and are trying to put an ideological spin where common sense should prevail.
There is another Benchmarking process. Benchmarking 1 remains the only objective and thorough comparison between the public and private sector, and indeed between public sector jobs. Biggest problem with benchmarking is the percentage increases rather than actual increases - and the resultant big skew for the top grades. The unions argued against this - it is IBEC and the Government that wanted it that way (and now they're giving out about the results). It would be cynical of me to suggest they wanted the percentage increases as their rates of pay are tied in to equivalent grades in the Civil service.
If people think that public sector pay will be less without national pay agreements, well as a public servant and union member I really hope you lobby against it as I'd be confident of getting a better deal without it and we can stop the sham of partnership too.
I change my mind on thsi every couple of weeks!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
This model of partnership goes way beyond just wage levels etc and we are looking at a new Benchmarking deal for Civil Servants which is not needed. There is no justification either statistically or any other way for more special increases in the Public Sector. Why not the same for the Public and Private Sectors?
There is no "race to the bottom"! Never before have so many Irish people earned so much and had so much oppurtunity! There may be issues about non compliance with wage rates but this is the exception not the norm. There will be extra protection for workers out of partnership but opinion polls etc would have ensured this anyway.
On other matters it means we have to negotiate the approval of the Trade Unions for every change that is needed to reform and change. The obstacles put in the way at the Health Service, Dublin Airport, Aer Lingus, Public Sector reformetc,etc all have to be negotiated endlessly with little actual change. The public through the ballott box have elected a government to carry out this reform yet a small number of people can seem to hold the country to ransom by refusing to change or even acknowledge the need for change so we can improve matters. I think that this constant refusal to accpept the democratic mandate of the people is wrong.
If we had no partnership model for a few years then we would not have to engage in this endless model of getting everyones agreement. This is the decision of the government now we'll engage in negotiations about how to implement that decision not negotiate the decision itself. It just holds everything up and as anyone who has worked in a highly unionised environment knows that is what the trade unions do hold up reform endlessly in some cases with castatrophic consequences.
[QUOTE=Roverstillidie]not sure what you mean here. feck all civil servants want to leave dublin, hence the decentralisation fiasco.
Everyone knows Decentralisation was designed to fail. Lets pick a few towns where we need to get a few extra votes and promise them a nice juicy public sector department. Scatter it all over the country without consideration for the National Spatial Strategy, public transport strategy,infrastructure and coordination within the departments.
It was designed to fail!!
It's interesting that Cork and Galway cities, the two places most likely to be attractive for civil servants to relocate to were n't even selected for decentralisation!
Nice you see you picked Cork there :rolleyes:
:D
But you're assuming that a new benchmarking process will lead to increases in public sector pay? You're prempting the result of a process that hasn't even started. If there is such a differential between public and private sector pay, a benchmarking process will prove this and they'll be at the very least no increases for the public sector. There's nothing in benchmarking that garantee's increases for public servants.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
No reason for IBEC to oppose increased regulation and increased inspections then. The only reason business is opposed to inspections is because they have something to hide. There is nothing extra for businesses to fear if they are playing by the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
The problem is that Government and in particular certain ministers go on solo runs, rather than negotiated settlements and consultation (Partnership?). Unions are the last to be involved instead of at the beginning, which leads to the defensive position. Hence the sham of the Partnership - a model we're supposed to be using in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
I have friends who joined the public sector with sole purpose of getting a job outside Dublin. IT jobs can be sketchy outside Dublin but when you get one in the public sector have security of job for life. In the private sector if you lose a job in IT may not be many options locally.
I don't have access to the stats but i think figures came out on recent years showing no problem finding people to fill state jobs & that was the selling point for benchmarking.
If the public sector unions are concerned that their top brass are voting on big wages increases for themselves then they need to deal with democratically as more at the bottom than the top.
Girlfriend works in this area. There were HUGE problems recruiting staff to civil/public service before benchmarking particularly to the skilled grades. Not too bad now but there's an embargo on recruitment now...Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Yeah but different unions for different grades in the civil service. Publivc Sector have a multitude too... As Macy said TD wages linked to higher grade salariesQuote:
If the public sector unions are concerned that their top brass are voting on big wages increases for themselves then they need to deal with democratically as more at the bottom than the top.
And lest we forget, the Ministers have already benefitted from two rounds of benchmarking (despite Bertie blatantly lying about it when it happened). 1 round for their TD's salary linked with Civil Service benchmarking, 1 round for their ministers salary which was tied to the benchmarking for Secretary and Director Generals...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Still though must be more people on the lower grades so they out vote the top grades? Surely you not suggesting the unions are not democratic? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Out vote them on what?
Unions are democratic, unlike our Government where a couple of TD's gets you all the power ;) . However, you vote on the whole deal, not individual aspects of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
pete, they are in a different union.
Isn't there a Central Committee...?
It's only the truth!!!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Of what? Each grade (more likely to be two grades really) has their own completely separate union dealing with their members concerns. They may have some of the same goals but they have their own meetings with government/ministries etc... They'd never have an occasion to vote on anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by pete