ICTUs 'Get Up, Stand Up campaign'

[Sunny]

The CSO report itself is not flawed, just as the ESRI report itself is not flawed. They both do indeed show that on average, public sector staff are paid more than private sector staff.

On average, aeroplanes cost more than bicycles. On average, a flight to America costs more than a flight to Kerry. On average, a television costs more than a chocolate bar.

Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.

So these reports are comparing apples with oranges.

Seriously read the reports and stop spouting rubbish. You yourself admit that the CSO have the best statisticians. The ESRI are not exactly fools either. Do you think they don't recognise the differences between the two sectors and adjust their findings as best they can. The CSO adjusted their gap down from over 30% to below 20% to take account of the various differences such as education between the two sectors. Just because they use averages doesn't make the figures meaningless. These guys are not using simple models done on the back of envelopes. Nobody is suggesting that these models are 100% accurate but they all come to the same general conclusion.

 

[Latrade]

The CSO report itself is not flawed, just as the ESRI report itself is not flawed. They both do indeed show that on average, public sector staff are paid more than private sector staff.

On average, aeroplanes cost more than bicycles. On average, a flight to America costs more than a flight to Kerry. On average, a television costs more than a chocolate bar.

Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.

So these reports are comparing apples with oranges.

You forgot that the average person has one breast and one testicle too. For all the problems with "averages" they are a necessary evil in establishing a baseline.

Again though the ultimate question is how with all these suddenly irreconcilable differences comparing public to private we managed to run the benchmarking system that shifted pay upwards for so many years?

 

[Mpsox]

Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.

So these reports are comparing apples with oranges.

No arguement with this in certain areas, eg, medical staff. However, a lot of public sector jobs are mundane repetitive tasks where an individual has to work to basic procedures and which are no more difficult then working on a shop floor where an individual would normally only be paid minimum wage. The starting salary in one country council for a clerical officer is €23232 which is ballpark 25% above the minimum wage, yet I'd question if the complexity of much of their roles warrents that

 

[Complainer]

Seriously read the reports and stop spouting rubbish. You yourself admit that the CSO have the best statisticians. The ESRI are not exactly fools either. Do you think they don't recognise the differences between the two sectors and adjust their findings as best they can. The CSO adjusted their gap down from over 30% to below 20% to take account of the various differences such as education between the two sectors. Just because they use averages doesn't make the figures meaningless. These guys are not using simple models done on the back of envelopes. Nobody is suggesting that these models are 100% accurate but they all come to the same general conclusion.

I've read both reports, thanks. I'm not a statistician and admit to struggling with some of the trickier statistical stuff, but regardless, I can read enough to see what both reports are based on, and more importantly, what they are not based on. They are not based on any analysis of job content.

The point was there are other reports out there showing the true picture for the private sector. The CSO report has limitations in the data it asks for. On the basis of what the CSO don't ask, then yes for that area the IBEC reports do have more weight because:

1. It addresses a huge gap in the CSO survey
2. It is Quarterly and more up-to-date
3. Its responses are from CFO/CEOs giving precise payroll and other information affecting their organisations.

Your suggestion (again without any actual look at or reading of the report) that the data is irrelevant and possibly even biased/inaccurate just because it has come from IBEC's members.

It is not foolish to point out the CSO survey is limited to certain areas and that this report expands on where the CSO remit is limited. For you this might be too huge a leap, especially when you haven't read the reports, however, it is a quarterly report that does have credence.

I can only assume that you haven't looked at the CSO report. It is quarterly, and it also requires CEOs/CFOs to give precise information. It may not ask all the same questions as IBEC, but it is far more rigourous (including statutory penalties for non-cooperation) and independent than anything IBEC produce.

No arguement with this in certain areas, eg, medical staff. However, a lot of public sector jobs are mundane repetitive tasks where an individual has to work to basic procedures and which are no more difficult then working on a shop floor where an individual would normally only be paid minimum wage. The starting salary in one country council for a clerical officer is €23232 which is ballpark 25% above the minimum wage, yet I'd question if the complexity of much of their roles warrents that

I'm not sure that I agree with the approach of minimum wage as being the target for entry level staff, but regardless, wouldn't it be nice to see a comparison based on the job content?

You forgot that the average person has one breast and one testicle too.

Great line - I look forward to using it soon.

For all the problems with "averages" they are a necessary evil in establishing a baseline.

But that is not how they are being used. They are being used here on AAM and in the media at large to fuel the public vs private 'divide and conquer' tactic that the Govt are playing. So don't be surprised when I and others seek to clarify the context and content of these reports every time they are used in evidence.

Again though the ultimate question is how with all these suddenly irreconcilable differences comparing public to private we managed to run the benchmarking system that shifted pay upwards for so many years?

We don't know, because of couse the benchmarking process was confidential. But possibly, the key difference between bechmarking and the ESRI/CSO tsunami is that benchmarking did exactly what I pointed out that the ESRI/CSO did not - it looked at the actual content of the job and came to view on that.

 

[Purple]

They are being used here on AAM and in the media at large to fuel the public vs private 'divide and conquer' tactic that the Govt are playing. So don't be surprised when I and others seek to clarify the context and content of these reports every time they are used in evidence.

I love that line that the Bearded Brethren and their barbate cohort keep trotting out. Basically it means if you are annoyed/upset/concerned about public sector spending and think that pay levels in the public sector are too high then you are an idiot and have been duped by the evil government and media who are attempting to divide the proletariat for their own Machiavellian reasons (possible to forestall the inevitable workers revolution which will sweep away the oppressive ruling classes ).

I’m used to those who spout socialist dogma being condescending and patronising but the divide and conquer line is really something special.

I’ve got news for you comrades; people are annoyed because they understand what is going on and no amount of pseudo-socialist didactic rhetoric will distract them from the plain truth.

 

[z107]

Comparing averages is fairly meangingless. The public sector does not have large numbers of shop floor workers, or shop workers, or bar/waiting staff. Staff qualifications in the public sector are much higher on average, than the private sector.

So you are suggesting that the CSO made such a fundamental error in their analysis that they neglected to check that the two distributions were based on similar data?

 

[Pique318]

Nobody in the public sector was complaining about the accuracy of the findings/comparisons/weightings when they suggested a pay RISE back when we could afford it !

Cherry picking the details to agree with when it suits and disagree with when it doesn't suit. Brilliant strategy.

 

[Latrade]

I can only assume that you haven't looked at the CSO report. It is quarterly, and it also requires CEOs/CFOs to give precise information. It may not ask all the same questions as IBEC, but it is far more rigourous (including statutory penalties for non-cooperation) and independent than anything IBEC produce.

Nope, I have looked and it was a poor effort to show that they actually share the same statistical bases and methodology. The key difference is that the CSO ones are quite some way behind once published. And in reality your only reason for rejecting the IBEC report is because of the authors rather than any actual proof that it is biased. It doesn't contradict the CSO reports, it just goes further than simply basic pay levels.

Just as an aside, there was never a problem with the IBEC surveys when they indicated a positive trend during National Wage agreements.

We don't know, because of couse the benchmarking process was confidential. But possibly, the key difference between bechmarking and the ESRI/CSO tsunami is that benchmarking did exactly what I pointed out that the ESRI/CSO did not - it looked at the actual content of the job and came to view on that.

Here's the root of the problem, whether with the media, the ESRI or anything else: we don't know. The frustration for the ESRI and the need to make adjustments is that there is no clear description of roles and tasks. In effect we just don't know what some parts of the Public Service do on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day, etc basis. This makes the comparisson difficult, but that's hardly the fault of the ESRI.

While the benchmarking process was confidential, if there was any clear criteria it would be available to the ESRI and it would be available through an FOI request. The problem is it just doesn't exist, or at least doesn't appear to exist.

However, if benchmarking was so confidential how can you be so sure it did compare like-with-like?

But that is not how they are being used. They are being used here on AAM and in the media at large to fuel the public vs private 'divide and conquer' tactic that the Govt are playing. So don't be surprised when I and others seek to clarify the context and content of these reports every time they are used in evidence.

The media will always use the worst part of a study for a story. It happens all the time (such as the Union stat on Public Sector funding compared to the EU15). It works both ways and it is unfair to only take issue when this technique is used against you.

Just like this morning and the Teacher's union stating "slashing of promotion opportunities" as a "loss" to pay incurred in their profession. They mention nothing of the skew in numbers of higher grades in teaching nor that the cut in promotions was on the basis of a far more reasonable model, i.e. promotion based on performance and merit and not service. The media missed this one.

However, averages are a necessary evil. They aren't just plucked out the air economists always account for variables as best the can. There simply is no other way to present the information.

As for their use here. Well I see enough people with enough cop on around to mostly see through the headlines. Some don't, but it works both ways. Some people are happy to ignore reports that point to a certain trend on the basis of the authors or that it doesn't suit their current argument.

 

[Sunny]

Nobody in the public sector was complaining about the accuracy of the findings/comparisons/weightings when they suggested a pay RISE back when we could afford it !

Cherry picking the details to agree with when it suits and disagree with when it doesn't suit. Brilliant strategy.

Don't you know that it's because the benchmarking body were able to do what other people couldn't and compare private v public sector jobs.

And it was such a masterpiece of statistical analysis, they kept the entire thing confidential.

Meanwhile the numbnuts in places like the CSO and the ESRI are talking through their bums when they release any sort of research.

If the benchmarking process was so correct and the current analysis so wrong, lets do another benchmarking process in open instead of behind closed doors. I will accept their results.

 

[Complainer]

So you are suggesting that the CSO made such a fundamental error in their analysis that they neglected to check that the two distributions were based on similar data?

I've no idea whether they checked it or not. That doesn't change the facts. The facts are that the public sector and the private sector was very different.

Nope, I have looked and it was a poor effort to show that they actually share the same statistical bases and methodology. The key difference is that the CSO ones are quite some way behind once published. And in reality your only reason for rejecting the IBEC report is because of the authors rather than any actual proof that it is biased. It doesn't contradict the CSO reports, it just goes further than simply basic pay levels.

So if you had looked at the CSO stuff, why did you repeatedly highlight the fact that the IBEC one was quarterly as a major benefit?

As an aside, the time taken to publish the CSO one in indicitive of the quality of the end of result, unlike the IBEC stuff.

Here's the root of the problem, whether with the media, the ESRI or anything else: we don't know. The frustration for the ESRI and the need to make adjustments is that there is no clear description of roles and tasks. In effect we just don't know what some parts of the Public Service do on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day, etc basis. This makes the comparisson difficult, but that's hardly the fault of the ESRI.


While the benchmarking process was confidential, if there was any clear criteria it would be available to the ESRI and it would be available through an FOI request. The problem is it just doesn't exist, or at least doesn't appear to exist.

Rubbish. All the information exists in the public sector, in terms of job descriptions and PMDS objectives. The problem is that no-one is looking at this stuff. Yes, this kind of comparision would be very difficult and time-consuming. But it is the only kind of comparison that is valid.

However, if benchmarking was so confidential how can you be so sure it did compare like-with-like?

You might want to go back and read what I actually said about benchmarking and then see if you really need to ask this question.

Just like this morning and the Teacher's union stating "slashing of promotion opportunities" as a "loss" to pay incurred in their profession. They mention nothing of the skew in numbers of higher grades in teaching nor that the cut in promotions was on the basis of a far more reasonable model, i.e. promotion based on performance and merit and not service. The media missed this one.

The cut in promotions is nothing to do with the model chosen. The number of posts is nothing to do with the method used to fill those posts. This is another red herring.

If the benchmarking process was so correct and the current analysis so wrong, lets do another benchmarking process in open instead of behind closed doors. I will accept their results.

Yep, agreed. I'll accept this too, provided that it is done properly, thoroughly, and there is a committment to revisit it at regular intervals, say every 2 years.

 

[Booter]

Again though the ultimate question is how with all these suddenly irreconcilable differences comparing public to private we managed to run the benchmarking system that shifted pay upwards for so many years?

Presumably by "for so many years", you mean "once". That's the number of times benchmarking was applied in the PS/CS

 

[Latrade]

So if you had looked at the CSO stuff, why did you repeatedly highlight the fact that the IBEC one was quarterly as a major benefit?

As an aside, the time taken to publish the CSO one in indicitive of the quality of the end of result, unlike the IBEC stuff.

I highlighted the criteria for the IBEC survey that showed it followed the same criteria as the CSO. They are comparable.

You last point is pure nonesense and one you can't state because you haven't looked at the IBEC reports. You've no idea of how the results are compiled or collated to suggest that because the CSO take longer it somehow makes their survey better. C'mon, you have to do better than that.

The simple point being made is that there are additional surveys beyond the CSO that point to cuts in the private sector. Not one economist or statistician seems to doubt the validity or credibility of these reports. Yet somehow you feel it is invalid without any notion of what it contains only because of the author.

You state that because IBEC represents employers in the Private Sector that it is in their reports are biased, even suggesting at the least "inaccuracies" in the data. Well we can all cast aspersions, after all aren't the CSO also Civil Servants? Difference is that knowing their data and statistics I've no intention of getting into meaningless accusations. There are limitations on the data collected by the CSO due to the nature of the questions they ask and that's it. More information on this gap is presented by the IBEC survey.

Rubbish. All the information exists in the public sector, in terms of job descriptions and PMDS objectives. The problem is that no-one is looking at this stuff. Yes, this kind of comparision would be very difficult and time-consuming. But it is the only kind of comparison that is valid.

It may well do, but the question has to be why the CSO, ESRI and any other data collection means doesn't get it and has to try to make adjustments and estimates. If it were as simple as making a phone call or a couple of emails do you not think they would have done this?

There is a huge gap in the data available.

The cut in promotions is nothing to do with the model chosen. The number of posts is nothing to do with the method used to fill those posts. This is another red herring.

It's an example to back up what you said about the media not bothering to check up or question people who present "averages" or "facts". The problem is though at least they're consistent and don't bother checking the facts of anyone, no matter how big a nut job.

As for the promotions issue, I'm going off the McCarthy report and also the prior discussion on promotion based on service.

 

[Complainer]

It may well do, but the question has to be why the CSO, ESRI and any other data collection means doesn't get it and has to try to make adjustments and estimates. If it were as simple as making a phone call or a couple of emails do you not think they would have done this?

There is a huge gap in the data available.

This isn't a data problem. The problem is the complexity of the comparison involved. Job descriptions don't fit into nice neat categories that can be structured in a database. Also, job descriptions vary widely across the public sector - the role of a CO in a HSE health centre is very different to a CO in a central Govt dept or a CO in a local authority call centre.

The differences get even bigger as you go up the levels.

I'm going off the McCarthy report

I went off it the day it was published.

 

[Latrade]

This isn't a data problem. The problem is the complexity of the comparison involved. Job descriptions don't fit into nice neat categories that can be structured in a database. Also, job descriptions vary widely across the public sector - the role of a CO in a HSE health centre is very different to a CO in a central Govt dept or a CO in a local authority call centre.

The differences get even bigger as you go up the levels.

No job description does. Whether it be mechanical engineer, sales, clerical, production, operative, financial officer etc, depending on sector and employer they can vastly different roles encompassing vastly different skill sets, competencies, working hours, etc.

So in all cases there had to be compromises in the "average" employee for that sector. In all cases the very well paid in those jobs skewed the figures up (or vice versa). However, to say that there is no direct comparison between them is wrong, there are always points of correlation and comparison.

However, there are grey areas in the data set from the PS for these studies (not just the ERSI), they could only go off the data they were supplied with.

If more accurate data was used for the benchmarking then it would have been available somewhere. However, if it does exist and if it is more accurate, then surely the unions would be waving this or at least hinting at this more accurate data as part of their action and continual press attention?

Why is there not even a hint of this more accurate data?

Perhaps the answer here is to release the data from the benchmarking and use this as a comparative study for current PS pay against Private Sector?

 

[DerKaiser]

Ictu has now upped the ante from 5 demands to a 10 point recovery plan
[broken link removed]

 

[oldtimer]

I have just watched Jack O'Connor with Pat Kenny on Frontline and what a grilling he got on the ten point plan. At times Jack looked foolish as Pat Kenny, McDowell and the Tax Lawyer tore him apart.

 

[Purple]

I have just watched Jack O'Connor with Pat Kenny on Frontline and what a grilling he got on the ten point plan. At times Jack looked foolish as Pat Kenny, McDowell and the Tax Lawyer tore him apart.

I only disagree with the “at times” bit.

There are way better, more intelligent and more articulate union officials. Why do they let Jack out in public. At least some of the other Brethren have the smarts to bluster and waffle enough to hide the fact that their economic policies are utterly stupid. Jack just sits there, completely out of his depth, repeating the same banal lines in his bland and deadpan way. If his foolishness didn’t have the potential to do so much damage to the country he’d put me to sleep.

 

[Latrade]

Ictu has now upped the ante from 5 demands to a 10 point recovery plan
[broken link removed]

I do like how they skip over stuff like the reason we're now allowed to borrow finally (we weren't in February) is because we've promised to make these cuts. The only reason we're in any position to negotiate this with the unions (as opposed to the IMF doing it) is because we were given money on the understanding we would begin making cuts.

Talk about ungrateful, because of a long term plan to reduce the public expenditure, the government managed to secure borrowing that kept people in PS employment. Not only that, but allowed the judgement on cuts to be done by the government rather than IMF.

In effect they're giving the government a huge compliment though in stating that we can now borrow money as the reason we're no longer blacklisted is because of the plans put in place by the government...which includes NAMA.

 

[Latrade]

I only disagree with the “at times” bit.

There are way better, more intelligent and more articulate union officials. Why do they let Jack out in public. At least some of the other Brethren have the smarts to bluster and waffle enough to hide the fact that their economic policies are utterly stupid. Jack just sits there, completely out of his depth, repeating the same banal lines in his bland and deadpan way. If his foolishness didn’t have the potential to do so much damage to the country he’d put me to sleep.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that there is a general acceptance of what must be done within the unions and even their officials. However to acquiesce to this in public would be disastrous. So we just have a chest beating exercise of no purpose other than to convince some of the more militant members that cuts will be over their dead body.

I honestly think people like O'Connor are trotted out in public to spew the standard lines about not backing down, tax the rich etc to pretend they're going to fight. We'll have the chest beating, the discussions with govenrment going on until 5am, before breaking down and then starting again in a "last ditch attempt" and finally at the last minute, after 20 hours of solid discussion and debate, there'll be an agreement which probably won't be too far from the government plan, except with one or two wording changes that give the unions the chance to claim victory.

 

[csirl]

Reading between the lines from O'Connors appearance on TV last night and media reports over the past couple of days, it appears that the unions are willing to accept cuts in public sector numbers to reduce the public sector pay bill instead of across the board % pay cuts.

Does anyone advise these people on PR and how to present their point of view on TV? I would have thought that if the unions came out and said something akin to "we'll help cut the public service pay bill........we'll support cutting public sector numbers by e.g. 10%......and the remaining employees will agree to redeployments and taking on the workload of the 10% who leave...etc. etc." then they would be taken seriously as, to be honest, cutting surplus staff in programme areas that have their funding (workload) reduced is the best way to cut the public sector pay bill.

Instead they appear on TV as being evasive and militant.