John Fitzgerald on Public Sector pay "Restoration"

P

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,986
Excellent article from John Fitzgerald in the Irish Times today.
He points out that pre-boom the Public Sector enjoyed a 20% margin on like for like jobs in the private sector (ignoring their vastly superior pension). Pre-Benchmarking the differential was 10% but instead of reducing Public Sector pay benchmarking further widened the gap.
That 20% differential was paid for with boom time taxes and is simply unaffordable in a balanced and sustainable economy.
 
Last edited:
Public sector wages wages should not match the private sector as long as the public sector retains the guarantee of employment and pension entitlements. The only exception would be if the public sector was unable to attract the talent needed.
 
You got to hand it to John Fitzgerald........read.....I was paid too much during my career and my pension is also way to high. Still, I'll earn more money now by expressing my concern about these inequities! :D
 
Last edited:
Yes, there was a PS pay premium.

The three PS paycuts have reduced the pay premium, towards 0% on average across the pay distribution.
 
Protocol said:
Yes, there was a PS pay premium.

The three PS paycuts have reduced the pay premium, towards 0% on average across the pay distribution.
Click to expand...
According to John Fitzgerald in Newstalk this morning it's still at between 5 and 10%.
 
Purple said:
According to John Fitzgerald in Newstalk this morning it's still at between 5 and 10%.
Click to expand...
And that still doesn't allow for the better pension in the PS. Nor for the pay premium being higher at lower pay levels.
 
orka said:
And that still doesn't allow for the better pension in the PS. Nor for the pay premium being higher at lower pay levels.
Click to expand...
Or for the shorter week, job security, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, flexi-time, generally nicer working environment etc..
 
orka said:
And that still doesn't allow for the better pension in the PS. Nor for the pay premium being higher at lower pay levels.
Click to expand...

That's a funny point. I've heard him make it on the radio on numerous occasions yet every time he says it the presenter completely ignores it - it is apparently taboo for rte to question/discuss the inflated salaries of those at the bottom of the PS pile - it doesn't fit with narrative; "the workers are great", "the problem in the PS is over paid managers", "pay rises for low paid (even though low paid in the PS is very different from low paid in the private sector)"
 
The initial report of the Public Sector Pay Commission will make interesting reading next summer.

Their terms of reference look promising -

"The Pay Commission will consider such other remuneration matters as it may be asked to consider by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform from time to time, including:
  • Providing objective analysis on the appropriate pay levels for identifiable groups within the public sector;
  • Comparing appropriate rates for identifiable groups with prevailing private sector/market rates. This should have regard to evidence on recruitment and retention trends in respect of each group;
  • Comparing appropriate rates for identifiable groups within the public service with their equivalents in other jurisdictions, particularly where internationally traded skillsets are required, having due regard to differences in living costs;
  • Providing objective analysis on the appropriate pay levels for officeholders’ pay and pensions.
When reaching its findings the Commission shall have regard to:

(a) The superannuation and other benefits applying in the public service;

(b) Security of tenure, where it applies to public servants;

(c) Pay comparisons taking account of relevant characteristics;

(d) The public service reform agenda;

(e) Evidence on recruitment and retention within the public service;

(f) Any other relevant matters including impact on national competitiveness and sustainable national finances and equity considerations;

(g) Any other issues as they are determined by Government."
 
Sarenco said:
The initial report of the Public Sector Pay Commission will make interesting reading next summer.

Their terms of reference look promising -

"The Pay Commission will consider such other remuneration matters as it may be asked to consider by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform from time to time, including:
  • Providing objective analysis on the appropriate pay levels for identifiable groups within the public sector;
  • Comparing appropriate rates for identifiable groups with prevailing private sector/market rates. This should have regard to evidence on recruitment and retention trends in respect of each group;
  • Comparing appropriate rates for identifiable groups within the public service with their equivalents in other jurisdictions, particularly where internationally traded skillsets are required, having due regard to differences in living costs;
  • Providing objective analysis on the appropriate pay levels for officeholders’ pay and pensions.
When reaching its findings the Commission shall have regard to:

(a) The superannuation and other benefits applying in the public service;

(b) Security of tenure, where it applies to public servants;

(c) Pay comparisons taking account of relevant characteristics;

(d) The public service reform agenda;

(e) Evidence on recruitment and retention within the public service;

(f) Any other relevant matters including impact on national competitiveness and sustainable national finances and equity considerations;

(g) Any other issues as they are determined by Government."
Click to expand...

This is very welcome I have to say. As a public sector worker I have never been comfortable with the blanket public/private sector comparison. I always thought it to be a lazy comparison made by people intent on creating a divide between workers.
There are roughly 5-6 times more private sector workers than public sector workers which indicates levels of business activity not provided by the PbS. These activities will encompass all skill levels from highly technical, professional and innovative to low-skilled minimum wage. The PbS will encompass these skill levels also but it remains to be seen to what range.
Certainly across all government departments and agencies people of high qualification, experience are employed, comparable to high skilled workers in the PrS.
And while there are also low-skilled workers employed in the PbS, the level and range of their activities would not be comparable to the level and range of low skilled work in the PrS.
This is not a sleight on PrS workers (ive worked 10yrs in PrS and am married to PrS worker), just stating a fact that there are no mushroom pickers, car wash attendents, deli workers, trainee hairdressers, waiting staff, fast-food workers, cinema attendants etc...etc...all of which, and more, are associated with low or minimum wage pay.
This, in the round, will have the effect of lowering average overall wages in PrS compared to the PbS in my opinion.
So the opportunity to make wage comparisons between comparable groupings is welcome.
 
It's an exercise to buy time. The report will be a whitewash and no matter what it says, 1 thing is for sure - there'll be no wage reductions in the PubSec.
It'll be left to gather dust. Meanwhile, Unions will get down to negotiating payrises for their members either unilaterally or collectively under some new form of Social partnership
 
Last edited:
A lot of low paid workers are in unions ,In fact quite a few employers insist they are,The bottom line is If employer/union can see a wage increase will put them out of buisness ,they will act in the best intreest of the company/worker,Workers will spot deception a mile away ,They are not going to allow people who were well paid to carry out the benchmarking to pick there pockets to pay for there mistakes
 
John Fitzgerald is ranting on similar to Garret with their averaging of this, that, and the other. After all, he's just an economist and we all know you'll never see 2 of them agree on anything even though they'll all trained in the same way. I do believe the same Mr Fitz worked for the state as an advisor and economist before the proverbial hit the fan. What wonderful work he did and fantastic advice he gave which saved us from going up the swanney. I'd take what John Fitz says with a pinch pinch of salt. His pedigree, when it was tested, proved to be very wanting indeed. However, there's certain people who love to buy a thoroughbred because they think they're buying a racehorse. Nuff said.
 
I like the bit about buying the racehorse ,The blame the racehorse because they paid to much they now have to feed him but they want someone else to pay for the hay
 
winter has been pritty brutal around here with colder than average temperatures, That means we have to feed out more hay than usual,Hay not only provides nourishment for the horses,But also acts like fuel for the furnace,The process of degestion helps keep the horses warm on these frigid days,We are grateful that our hay suppliers keep us well stocked with hay
 
TheBigShort as you know i have followed your posts .You are the dark Horse. No one so far has the required skill set to tether the Horses all talk and no action,I have to go to work some of us do on a saturday By ALL
 
noproblem said:
John Fitzgerald is ranting on similar to Garret with their averaging of this, that, and the other. After all, he's just an economist and we all know you'll never see 2 of them agree on anything even though they'll all trained in the same way. I do believe the same Mr Fitz worked for the state as an advisor and economist before the proverbial hit the fan. What wonderful work he did and fantastic advice he gave which saved us from going up the swanney. I'd take what John Fitz says with a pinch pinch of salt. His pedigree, when it was tested, proved to be very wanting indeed. However, there's certain people who love to buy a thoroughbred because they think they're buying a racehorse. Nuff said.
Click to expand...
You're having a pop at the man. I know nothing about him but the article makes sense to me. How about you comment on the content?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top