Sit In at the Passport Office
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
The question was posed to Blair Horan on Matt Cooper and, apologies if my numbers aren't exactly right, but he said starting at 24K and going on to 37.5K after 18 years. There was no mention, or question, as to whether there were any extra payments or allowances.
24K is certainly low but not necessarilly low for the type of job. 37.5K isn't if the person is doing the exact same clerical job.
This isn't necessarily confined to the PS, but it's certainly more noticable, the notion of people not having any career progression and getting paid more.
After 18 years working I'd like to be earning more than 37K but I'd also like to think I wasn't doing the same job as I was 18 years previously.
counter staff are generally clerical officers. Some staff would be on pre 95 agreements, and some on post 95.
There are no allowances or extra payments (apart from overtime) that I am aware of. There are no bonuses apart from the agreed annual increments that are part of a contract of employment that are dependant on performance.
There are no allowances or extra payments (apart from overtime) that I am aware of. There are no bonuses apart from the agreed annual increments that are part of a contract of employment that are dependant on performance.
Can you clarify what are the pre and post 95 agreements.
I would look at this quite differently..the clerical officers can do overtime,and they can get annual increments.
Anyone who stays in the same position for 18 years is the type of person who has no ambition ..
I would look at this quite differently..the clerical officers can do overtime,and they can get annual increments.
Anyone who stays in the same position for 18 years is the type of person who has no ambition ..
Staff who were employed prior to 6th April 1995 are paid slightly differently to those employed on or after 6th April 1995. Staff employed after 1995 pay class a prsi.
Clerical officers can do overtime, but they must pay income levy, pension levy and tax on this overtime. The Pension levy should not be applied to overtime as only basic wage is calculated for overall pension entitlements.
I agree with you on your last point. But, promotions must be won, you have to sit interviews (like most places) and thats where the politics comes into play in my mind, you may be the most suited for the job, but if your from the wrong office your no good. Promotions are not earned on merit, something we have been asking for a long time. Some people are happy to stay doing what they do, its the exact same in the private sector. Some people do not want to take on the responsibility of management, financially its sometimes not worth it at all.
Movement in the civil service is also another problem, especially in my department.
The reality is that, contrary to union propaganda, senior staff in the public sector are under paid (in comparison to the private sector) and lower-pay employees are over-paid in comparison to their counterparts in the private sector. I’m not saying that €24’000 a year is a high wage but it may well be higher than they’d get doing the same sort of job anywhere else.
RonanC, you say Clerical officers can do overtime, but they must pay income levy, pension levy and tax on this overtime. ".
Well so what, we all do that!
You also say; "Promotions are not earned on merit, something we have been asking for a long time. Some people are happy to stay doing what they do, its the exact same in the private sector. Some people do not want to take on the responsibility of management, financially its sometimes not worth it at all.".
Exactly!! And guess what ,if they don't want to take the responsibility, then they stay on the same pay.
Promotions are as far as I have seen,given on seniority, but you will probably find the unions wouldn't have it any other way!
Well so what, we all do that!
You also say; "Promotions are not earned on merit, something we have been asking for a long time. Some people are happy to stay doing what they do, its the exact same in the private sector. Some people do not want to take on the responsibility of management, financially its sometimes not worth it at all.".
Exactly!! And guess what ,if they don't want to take the responsibility, then they stay on the same pay.
Promotions are as far as I have seen,given on seniority, but you will probably find the unions wouldn't have it any other way!
Last edited:
Only the public service pay pension levies though
You say that they have no ambition - thats a very broad statement to make
Promotions in the past were on seniority which in my view was and still to some extent is an unfair promotion system. The Union agreed on more merit based promotions but they have yet to surface. The majority of promotions in the public service would be open (to the public) or confined (to existing staff) competitions, and I think there were many more open competitions in recent years compared to confined ones.
I agree with Purple and Thedaras - the low pay argument is fundamentally flawed - the reality is that they are paid above market rates for the work they do. I'm confident that a private sector provider could process applications more efficiently and cost effectively than current staff.
We need to alter the power balance in this country by legislating to introduce barriers to prevent unions/employees holding the country to hostage. I don't buy the argument that unions are essential to protect employees - we now have a raft of national (and EU) legislation in place which underpins employee rights. Union actions/interventions typically damage competitiveness which in turn destroys jobs.
We need to alter the power balance in this country by legislating to introduce barriers to prevent unions/employees holding the country to hostage. I don't buy the argument that unions are essential to protect employees - we now have a raft of national (and EU) legislation in place which underpins employee rights. Union actions/interventions typically damage competitiveness which in turn destroys jobs.
This is a good point. Leaving aside the Public V Private tit fot tat that has risen his ungly head again (a debate that ahs only started since the recession bit), I have wondered over the past few days as to how much 'hardhip' the delay in issuing passports is causing really? queues autsied the office remind me of the panic queues to withdraw savngs from Northern rock a few years ago. No reporter has asked the question; 'why did you noy apply in reasonable time for your passport? The Passport site says as follows; ' Apply early! It is recommended, if you live in Ireland, to use the Passport Express service which is available at most post offices. If you are not in a hurry for your passport you can apply by regular post but you should allow at least 4-6 weeks for return of your passport by this method. If you live abroad apply to your nearest Irish Mission. In general allow at least 4-6 weeks for the issue of your passport in such cases.' Presumably this measn in ordinary times. I would love to have every person queieng asked when exactly they applied and what method they used.
aslo, the inconveneience of the 'Passport delays' should be conmpared to another department that is taking the eact same industrial actions; The dept of social welfare. Now if the saem delays in vital necessary weekly dole payments was happening, then that would really be a big issue. Why isn't that happening? There have been reports of one-day delays in issuing o cheques but that's all. what's the difference here?
I agree that there is comprehensive legislation in place to protect employees rights , the introduction of such legislation was often done after consultation with unions or in many cases union driven.
However in cases like the current Public Sector impasse where employees feel that they have been unfairly treated by having pay cuts unilaterally imposed on them then no amount of the aforementioned legislation is going to enable them redress the situation - enter the unions !
Welfarite; Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when I suggested that if overtime is needed to process passports,why not increase the time needed/required to apply for them.
My point is that at present this is not the case ,therefore people who apply are quite entitled to expect their passport to arrive on time.
My point is that at present this is not the case ,therefore people who apply are quite entitled to expect their passport to arrive on time.
So I guess they won't be getting any of those this year then ...
The irony is that on some of the pay deals the lower paid received an extra 1 or 2%, yet when pay had to be cut their cut was less than middle to high earners. This means lower grades have done better in percentage terms in the pay deals than higher earners.
I think rather than all this 5% cut on first 30k, 10% on next 20K etc, they should have just cut all grades by the same percentage cut and probably extend it to public sector pensioners.
Certainly would have been easier to implement and in my opinion fairer.
Passport Office Staff get Standing Ovation at CPSU conference
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0326/pay.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0326/pay.html
Bill Struth
Registered User
- Messages
- 182
Why shouldn't they? I'd be clapping too if I was there.
I don't think so. I remember looking at the salary scales from Grade III to grade VII when benchmarking was being awarded. The percentage increase the grades got in the bechmarking incremented according to the grade. I don't have the old scales now but a grade III got something like 3% whereas a grade VII got 5%. After than the increases were the same be it 1 or 2% etc.
Pensioners who retire from 2011 will have pension based on the lower scale.