# If public sector workers took 1 week unpaid holiday



## dodo (1 Apr 2009)

A big American company with over 100,000 employee's is thinking of asking each employee to take 1 weeks unpaid holiday which if done will result in the company not having to let anyone go this year. 

If public sector workers took 1 week holiday unpaid, and  there are over 400,000 of them, average wage is around 47K(Gross 900 Euro a week) ( *I can't believe that)* , would result in savings of 280 Million or so.With tax,PSRI etc not to sure of exact amount,
You might say what about service's  and they are effected but they don't seem that effected when they go sick which on average is more than the national sick in the private sector which runs at around 8 days a year. ( *of course it is higher they always get paid for been sick*)
Even if they did not take unpaid holiday's maybe they would accept only to get paid for a maximum of 3 days in a year, just say for the rest of this year even.
Many jobs in the private sector don't pay sick days at all.


----------



## shesells (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*

Tell my relative who is already struggling to run a house on 24k gross as a clerical officer that she should take a week unpaid leave. Can you get blood out of a stone?


----------



## sandrat (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*

I worked somewhere once where everyone worked a day for charity once a year, get everyone to contribute one days salary not just public sector but everyone


----------



## Chocks away (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*

Interesting idea.


----------



## csirl (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*

The sick pay thing seems to be a problem with certain areas of the public sectors. There was an article in one of the newspapers not too long ago which gave some figures. It appear that with most public sector organisations, the sick leave rate is similar to the private sector and in many it is lower. The particular problem seems to be in the HSE and Prisons Service. With the HSE having so many employees - more than the remainder of the public service combined, it skews the average.


----------



## sandrat (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*

the only sick leave I have ever taken while being a public servant was when I was put on complete bedrest due to high blood pressure in pregnancy even then I came back once the blood pressure dropped a bit (even though doc would have signed me off) because I had so much work to do and knew no one would be covering for me when I was gone. I took more sick days when I was in private sector in the form of 3 days together because I got paid for them without a cert


----------



## Ron Burgundy (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



csirl said:


> The sick pay thing seems to be a problem with certain areas of the public sectors. *There was an article in one of the newspapers not too long ago which gave some figures*. It appear that with most public sector organisations, the sick leave rate is similar to the private sector and in many it is lower. The particular problem seems to be in the HSE and Prisons Service. With the HSE having so many employees - more than the remainder of the public service combined, it skews the average.


 
Oh it was in the papers......wow it must be true


----------



## dodo (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



jaybird said:


> Is that median or mean? A huge amount of staff are on a LOT less than your figure of 47k, should someone earning 24-30k take a weeks unpaid leave? Would you?


Other companies have done this even the people who earned around the 24K mark,It amount's to around 11-12 euro or so a week, surely that is not to much to ask to save someone else's job and maybe even your own,Would you want someone to do that for you if it meant saving your job?
No Pain No gain


----------



## baldyman27 (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



dodo said:


> Other companies have done this even the people who earned around the 24K mark,It amount's to around 11-12 euro or so a week, surely that is not to much to ask to save someone else's job and maybe even your own,Would you want someone to do that for you if it meant saving your job?
> No Pain No gain


 
Good post.


----------



## Yachtie (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*

I understand that public sector workers on €24k or thereabout have difficult time, just as anyone else. But they *still have their jobs* and a guaranteed pay cheque at the end of the month unlike a lot of people in the private sector. Private sector workers have suffered so much with job losses, pay cuts, reduced hours, etc. and this applies to everyone from minimum wage employees to senior executives. 

Personally I think it's unfair of public sector to constantly whinge and moan about the bad hand they've been dealt with the pension levy, spending cuts, etc. Over a hundred thousand private sector employees have it a lot worse at the moment.


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



shesells said:


> Tell my relative who is already struggling to run a house on 24k gross as a clerical officer that she should take a week unpaid leave. Can you get blood out of a stone?


 She's the only income in the house? If so I take it that she's getting welfare payments as well.


----------



## gipimann (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*

If the person referred to by shesells is single with no dependants, there are no Welfare payments she could qualify for as a working person.


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



gipimann said:


> If the person referred to by shesells is single with no dependants, there are no Welfare payments she could qualify for as a working person.



No, but if she's single with no dependants she should be alse to manage on €24'000. 
I take it that she is renting as nobody on €24'000 would be stupid enough to think it's a good idea to buy... would they?


----------



## zxcvbnm (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



jaybird said:


> Is that median or mean? A huge amount of staff are on a LOT less than your figure of 47k, should someone earning 24-30k take a weeks unpaid leave? Would you?


 
That figure is indeed average.
In fact - the correct figure is 49k - not 47k as stated.

The average is 37k in the private sector.


----------



## ajapale (1 Apr 2009)

dodo said:


> If public sector workers took 1 week holiday unpaid, ..... would result in savings of 280 Million or so.......



Thousands of public service workers take unpaid parental and extended maternity leave every year already!


When you say public sector workers do you mean every category of employment or perhaps you mean just administration/clerical type workers?

For instance do you want junior hospital doctors to take 1 weeks unpaid leave? How about physios, laboratory scientists, nurses, radiographers etc.

If teachers were to take a 1 weeks unpaid leave would they take it all at the same time? Who would take their classes?


----------



## zxcvbnm (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



Ron Burgundy said:


> Oh it was in the papers......wow it must be true


 
WHat kind of a statement is that?

It's one of the more ridiculous comments i've seen on this forum for quite a while.

WHat exactly are you saying?
That newspapers are under no circumstances ever to be trusted?

Are you seriously suggesting that you never once in all your life in the company of others brought up as a conversation topic or discussed an article you saw in a newspaper ?

Bizarre indeed.


----------



## room305 (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



Purple said:


> No, but if she's single with no dependants she should be alse to manage on €24'000.
> I take it that she is renting as nobody on €24'000 would be stupid enough to think it's a good idea to buy... would they?



Well there was an ad in the paper recently suggesting that those on €28k would be in a position to buy a €159,000 apartment (cheapest apartment in Dublin apparently). Sounded a bit hefty to me at nearly six times income but I imagine there's quite a few people out there on similar wages with mortgages of this size.


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2009)

ajapale said:


> If teachers were to take a 1 weeks unpaid leave would they take it all at the same time? Who would take their classes?


 During one of the many months that they are on holidays perhaps?
(If you put your hand out...)


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



room305 said:


> Well there was an ad in the paper recently suggesting that those on €28k would be in a position to buy a €159,000 apartment (cheapest apartment in Dublin apparently). Sounded a bit hefty to me at nearly six times income but I imagine there's quite a few people out there on similar wages with mortgages of this size.


 So there are quite a few stupid people... ye can't legislate for that.


----------



## ajapale (1 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> During one of the many months that they are on holidays perhaps?



So the suggestion could be that public service employees do not get paid for one of their weeks annual leave.



Purple said:


> (If you put your hand out...)


Im not sure what you mean by this : is it "chuir amach do lámh"


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2009)

ajapale said:


> So the suggestion could be that public service employees do not get paid for one of their weeks annual leave.


Maybe, it's not my idea.
I don't like the way the government are looking for ways to cut the pay of public an civil servants but don't have the balls to just come out and be honest about what they are doing. Getting your pay cut is a big deal, it should be acknowledged as such. I'm not saying I'm against public sector pay cuts, they are necessary as we cannot afford current pay levels, but it's insulting to those that are taking the hit to pretend it's other than it is.




ajapale said:


> Im not sure what you mean by this : is it "chuir amach do lámh"


 Something like that


----------



## daithi (1 Apr 2009)

..actually, I think 2 weeks unpaid leave,staggered over the year could be doable...

daithi


----------



## becky (1 Apr 2009)

I did hear a shorter working week was discussed at the last talks.  

We got a circular this week announcing a memoratium until end 2010.  Further instructions are to follow and I fully expect that managers will be asked to consider short weeks/term time etc.  I'd say managers will then have to explain in detail why its not possible in their section.


----------



## dodo (1 Apr 2009)

ajapale said:


> Thousands of public service workers take unpaid parental and extended maternity leave every year already!
> 
> 
> When you say public sector workers do you mean every category of employment or perhaps you mean just administration/clerical type workers?
> ...


I agreed with alot of what you say,there would have to some sort timetable done, as for schools just do not pay them for 1 week of their all to long holiday's ,look of course there would be huge thinking,  but our government really need to start realizing that they are the employer,Boss,Gaffer etc, these workers which by the way my wife is and has been for over 11 years need to be treated in the same vain as other employee's are in other companies.I don't know of any other employer in the Country that seem to have to ask permission for every single thing they seem to want to do to improve their company.As mention in an earlier post the 5 days do not have to be taken all at once.


----------



## csirl (2 Apr 2009)

Average industrial wage figures are meaningless in a country like Ireland where a small percentage of workforce are in industrial employment. Ireland is a services economy, so the average services sector wage would be more relevent.


----------



## liaconn (3 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



jaybird said:


> I asked if it was the mean or the median, there are different kinds of average, you know!
> 
> And where are you getting your figures from? Is 37k the industrial wage average? I don't think its an average for the entire private sector,which is a pretty meaningless figure anyway.
> Can you quote your sources?


 

I would like to know this as well? It sounds as if the figure quoted is being skewed by the salaries of people at the very, very top. There is no way the majority of public servants are on >49K.


----------



## dodo (3 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> People bandy about these averages as if they had some meaning, without understanding the basics of statistics.
> Example, a small company, the boss says the average wage in the company is €30,000 pa, while the union rep says the average wage is €17,000. Is one lying or just mistaken?
> Neither, they are both right, they are just using different definitions of average.
> boss pays himself €125,000 andthe other eight employees €29,000, €28,000, €21,000,€17,000, €15,000, €13,000, €12000, and €10,000. Add these together and divide by the number of employees, and the average (mean) is €30,000.​
> ...


Agree to a point but from my own family situation, my wife is in Aminstration in Public sector no fancy certificate's behind her or anything and is on 42K for a 36 hour week with 28 days holiday,Not bad is it
(maybe they should be made give back one weeks holiday) I would love to know what the average holidays are per year leaving out teachers of course) v Private sector


----------



## ludermor (3 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> People bandy about these averages as if they had some meaning, without understanding the basics of statistics.
> Example, a small company, the boss says the average wage in the company is €30,000 pa, while the union rep says the average wage is €17,000. Is one lying or just mistaken?
> Neither, they are both right, they are just using different definitions of average.
> boss pays himself €125,000 andthe other eight employees €29,000, €28,000, €21,000,€17,000, €15,000, €13,000, €12000, and €10,000. Add these together and divide by the number of employees, and the average (mean) is €30,000.
> ...



Surely the fairer way would be to take an average of the employees wages? 
I dont understand your logic of your mean , it is too simplistic , is there a reason why wouldnt use an average of the employees?


----------



## Sunny (3 Apr 2009)

ludermor said:


> Surely the fairer way would be to take an average of the employees wages?
> I dont understand your logic of your mean , it is too simplistic , is there a reason why wouldnt use an average of the employees?


 
He is using an average. Mean median and mode are all averages calculations. He is correct in saying that the median is better for working out average incomes because the mean is sensitive to outliers in the distribution i.e. the average will be skewed upwards by people earning high salaries.


----------



## foxylady (3 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



Yachtie said:


> I understand that public sector workers on €24k or thereabout have difficult time, just as anyone else. But they *still have their jobs* and a guaranteed pay cheque at the end of the month unlike a lot of people in the private sector. Private sector workers have suffered so much with job losses, pay cuts, reduced hours, etc. and this applies to everyone from minimum wage employees to senior executives.
> 
> Personally I think it's unfair of public sector to constantly whinge and moan about the bad hand they've been dealt with the pension levy, spending cuts, etc. Over a hundred thousand private sector employees have it a lot worse at the moment.


 
ost public sector workers have had recent pay cuts which Brian Cowen likes to call a pension levy when in fact its no more than a pay cut.

its the likes of ministers and the taoiseach himself that needs to take pay cuts as they can well afford to.


----------



## zxcvbnm (3 Apr 2009)

*Re: If public sector workers took 1 week holiday*



jaybird said:


> I asked if it was the mean or the median, there are different kinds of average, you know!
> 
> And where are you getting your figures from? Is 37k the industrial wage average? I don't think its an average for the entire private sector,which is a pretty meaningless figure anyway.
> Can you quote your sources?


 
Actually - I was wrong with my figure of 49k average wage in public sector.
It is in fact 50k.
€966 euros per week to be exact.
Just heard it this very second on six one news from george lee also.

[broken link removed]

In fact - here are the figures from teh cso.
They only go as far as 2007 for some reason though.
BAck in 2007 the average was 921 per week.

[broken link removed]

As for your comment that there are different kind of averages this is not true.
The median is not another type of average.
The median and average are 2 distinctly different things.

As for your reasoning that an average can be skewed by a particular high figure being prsent this is correct.
However - there are now 373000 workers in the public sector.
WIth that many workers such skewing does not exist.
So the average is indeed very relevant in this scenario.


----------



## zxcvbnm (3 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> Both the median and the mean are commonly referred to as averages, the technical definition is largely irrelevant in common parlance, hence my point. You cannot confidently assert such skewing does not exist without knowing how many are on high salaries.


 
You are mistaken about the median being referred to as the average in common parlance.
It is not the average - and therefore anyone who uses it instead of the word average is plain wrong and should not be copied.
They are 2 different measurements. The technical definition is not in anyway largely irrelevant as you suggest.

As for the skewing the smaller the sample of data the more likely skewing can arise.
373000 is not a small sample of data - and consequently skewing is non-existant.


----------



## liaconn (4 Apr 2009)

No, but when you're dealing with that number of people and with a wide,wide range of professions and job titles, quoting an 'average' salary does not make much sense.


----------



## dodo (4 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> No, but when you're dealing with that number of people and with a wide,wide range of professions and job titles, quoting an 'average' salary does not make much sense.


What part of the public sector do you work and do really not consider people who work in this sector to be very lucky in general with the security of their jobs.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (4 Apr 2009)

dodo said:


> What part of the public sector do you work and do really not consider people who work in this sector to be very lucky in general with the security of their jobs.



No because during the boom years no one wanted the public sector jobs they found it hard to fill positions, now times are bad and the people how went into the public sector are seen as money grabbers how should feel guilty for going into the service when no one else wanted to.

Well tough $hit, no guilt here. I decided to go in and have job security but rubbish pay. You can't have everything in life.


----------



## NorthDrum (4 Apr 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> No because during the boom years no one wanted the public sector jobs they found it hard to fill positions, now times are bad and the people how went into the public sector are seen as money grabbers how should feel guilty for going into the service when no one else wanted to.
> 
> Well tough $hit, no guilt here. I decided to go in and have job security but rubbish pay. You can't have everything in life.


 

Totally inacurate drivel Ron. I tried to get a Public service job in 2003 during the peak of the boom. There were a couple of hundred of us in Croke Park doing those exams and only a handful of jobs. 

There are only so many Public service positions available. Quit playing the bleeding "I chose job security" card. The TRUTH is a majority of people in the private sector didnt have a choice but to work in the private sector and a majority of them didnt make millions in the boom years. 

I wont write down the salary I was on after 5 years in the private sector, with a business degree, stockbroking diploma and Financial qualifications. Lets just say it was comfortably below the industry average (back then and today) and I know many many people who were stuck with the same paltry salary with similar or better qualifications. I wasnt getting the cushdie (cushdie from where i was looking up from!) benchmarking figures that the poor unfortunate public service workers were getting!

Your constant Private sector bashing is no better then people who call public sector workers as "all lazy". Hypocrite to the core my friend.


----------



## Purple (5 Apr 2009)

Ron, I know you work in the private sector (self employed) as well as your public sector job so you have no agenda here. The facts are that 10 years ago the public sector, on average, job for job,  was better paid than the private sector and over those 10 years the gap has increased, not decreased.


----------



## Yorrick (5 Apr 2009)

Myles na GCopaleen reckoned that everyone should stay in bed for one week out of every four. It would be a great saving on fuel, elctricity, food etc


----------



## liaconn (5 Apr 2009)

dodo said:


> What part of the public sector do you work and do really not consider people who work in this sector to be very lucky in general with the security of their jobs.


 

What kind of off the point remark is that?   I was talking about the impossibility of working out an average salary for an area as wide and varied as the public sector. I did not, at any stage, say that people in the public sector were  not lucky to have job security. That does not mean, however, that the people at the very bottom, on low salaries, should be asked to take a week's unpaid holiday because if you add everyone's salary together and work out the average it comes to a reasonable wage.
That would be like adding up the salaries of everyone who works in a hospital, from the top consultant down to the person who mops the canteen floor, saying the average works out at blah and therefore all hospital workers are on great salaries and should take a pay cut. Its a lazy and inaccurate way of doing the figures.


----------



## liaconn (5 Apr 2009)

NorthDrum said:


> Totally inacurate drivel Ron. I tried to get a Public service job in 2003 during the peak of the boom. There were a couple of hundred of us in Croke Park doing those exams and only a handful of jobs.
> 
> There are only so many Public service positions available. Quit playing the bleeding "I chose job security" card. The TRUTH is a majority of people in the private sector didnt have a choice but to work in the private sector and a majority of them didnt make millions in the boom years.
> 
> ...


 

So you didn't get a job in the public sector because other people, who competed fairly and squarely with you for the jobs, were deemed better. and therefore got a better paid job than you What's so wrong about that? I applied for some jobs in the private sector, they were given to stronger candidtates and I settled for a less well paid job in the public sector. That's life.


----------



## sandrat (5 Apr 2009)

I got a job in the public sector and didnt have to sit any written exams I just had to do an interview but that is because my job is specialised and requires a specific qualification. I think I was always going to end up in the public sector, both my parents are working for the same people since they were 17 (eircom and HSE) and my sister is a civil servant. Just turned out though that when I want to college, during my degree I discovered a chance to do a masters that would leave me with a job I would really enjoy and that job was in the public sector. I worked in it in the private sector and could probably have made more money by negotiating things but the reason I left was because I was commuting 4 hours a day 5 days a week and I wanted to have a baby and wasn't going to do 4 hours a day on the train/road while pregnant and would not have gotten paid maternity leave in the private sector job I was in. So I sought out a public sector job and I got it. People made fun of me but I knew what I wanted and I got it and have since been able to secure a higher level job which is even better suited to my background and qualifications


----------



## zxcvbnm (5 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> No, but when you're dealing with that number of people and with a wide,wide range of professions and job titles, quoting an 'average' salary does not make much sense.


 
Rubbish.

The wide range of professions and job titles that you mention is entirely irrelevant.
WHat is reevant is what the public sector costs the country.

And by definition the average salary is inherently *very* relevant.

The only time an average is perhaps not relevant is when you are dealing with a small data set when the average can be skewed and therefore misrepresent the underlying data.

Since this is not the case with the public sector then the average is very relevant.

Out of curiosity may i ask - if the average is not relevant in this scenario then in what scenario exactly _would_ the calculation of an average be useful in your mind?


----------



## liaconn (5 Apr 2009)

zxcvbnm said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> The wide range of professions and job titles that you mention is entirely irrelevant.
> WHat is reevant is what the public sector costs the country.
> ...


 
That is rubbish. When you're dealing with thousands and thousands of people in jobs ranging from CEO of a major semi state to the person who cleans the toilets in the Garda Barracks, what is the point of quoting an 'average salary' to justify across the board policies re pay cuts and unpaid holidays.  That is what I meant about it being not relevant. You simply can't make fiscal policies etc based on a meaningless 'average'.


----------



## zxcvbnm (5 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> what is the point of quoting an 'average salary' to justify across the board policies re pay cuts and unpaid holidays.


 
Here's why !

The average public sector wage is 50k.
The average private sector wage is 37k.

At a glance you can see a huge discrepancy between the 2 figures without any reasonable justification for it whatsoever.

Therefore - the average can be used to not unreasonably suggest that the pay in the public should decrease siginificantly 
i.e. public sector wages need to drop by a quarter to be in line with private sector as they are currently 30% greater than the private.

ANd please don't give the point about skewed averages as the size of the pool of data used in both is very large.


By the way - I am not suggesting that everyone shoudl get a 25% pay cut in teh public sector.
However - the average salary does display at a glance that the public sector bill needs to reduce significantly.
As to how that is implemented is another argument.

To conclude - the average figure can indeed be used to justify accross the board policies re pay cuts.

PS - check out this link

http://ronanlyons.wordpress.com/200...d-the-e50000-question-its-not-that-difficult/

In case anyone disputes my average figures used it shows a graph of the averages for public vs private.
This was from before the new data became apparent during the week which pushed the public above 50k.


----------



## liaconn (5 Apr 2009)

zxcvbnm said:


> Here's why !
> 
> The average public sector wage is 50k.
> The average private sector wage is 37k.
> ...


 
It would be more meaningful to look at how comparable jobs in the public and private sector match up. If for instance the average salary for people doing secretarial work in the public sector is much higher salary than the average in the private sector then there is a case for stating that the public sector employee is overpaid. If someone doing systems analysis in the public sector is on a lower salary than the private sector, then they are actually being underpaid in comparison to the going rate. But just doing a blanket comparison between public and private sector is too simplistic. For instance, the private sector would include many, many migrants willing to take jobs the Irish have refused and to work for the minimum wage. If these migrants hadn't been available, the salaries would have had to have been increased to attract Irish workers.

And by the way, I'm not saying that there aren't overpaid people in the public sector, or areas that are overstaffed. I just think any adjustments need to be properly targetted. Remarks like, 'the whole of the public sector should take a week's unpaid holiday' are not very helpful at the moment.


----------



## NorthDrum (5 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> So you didn't get a job in the public sector because other people, who competed fairly and squarely with you for the jobs, were deemed better. and therefore got a better paid job than you What's so wrong about that? I applied for some jobs in the private sector, they were given to stronger candidtates and I settled for a less well paid job in the public sector. That's life.


 
Might help for you to read my other posts to see what context I was putting this in. I wasnt complaining about not getting a job.

Apparantly the public sector couldnt fill any positions back then, but I know better (as I wanted to work in the public service as I wanted job security).

If people are going to make throwout comments like "nobody wanted public sector jobs" then you need to accurate and balanced in your assessment. This statement was completely inaccurate because it suggested that private sector workers simply worked there for the money . .

People are constantly arguing private v public debates here but i dont see why some people cant see both sides of the spectrum. I just think both sides are generally as ignorant as each other . .


----------



## zxcvbnm (5 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> It would be more meaningful to look at how comparable jobs in the public and private sector match up. If for instance the average salary for people doing secretarial work in the public sector is much higher salary than the average in the private sector then there is a case for stating that the public sector employee is overpaid. If someone doing systems analysis in the public sector is on a lower salary than the private sector, then they are actually being underpaid in comparison to the going rate. But just doing a blanket comparison between public and private sector is too simplistic. For instance, the private sector would include many, many migrants willing to take jobs the Irish have refused and to work for the minimum wage. If these migrants hadn't been available, the salaries would have had to have been increased to attract Irish workers.
> 
> And by the way, I'm not saying that there aren't overpaid people in the public sector, or areas that are overstaffed. I just think any adjustments need to be properly targetted. Remarks like, 'the whole of the public sector should take a week's unpaid holiday' are not very helpful at the moment.


 
I take your point that it would be better to compare the average of like-for-like jobs in teh public versius the private.

However - given that there is *such* a large discrepancy between the entire average (i.e. 30% !!) then it is reasonable to conclude that 
it will also be significanly higher for like-for-like roles.
Getting back to our original dispute re the usefulness of general averages i think they are not irrelevant and provided an interesting insight at a glance for this particular argument of private versus public.
YEs - they can be bettered as you suggested - but far from irrelevant.

I have to disagree with your point about the minimum wage people in the private sector.
Firstly you were claiming that the average for the public sector is most likely skewed upwards. 
ANd now you are saying that the inclusion of minimum wgae people skews the private average downwards.
I'm suspecting you have a bias towards the public sector given the way you choose to interpret the averages.

The fact of the matter is that these people on the minimum wage are righly included in the average for the private.
There are other mundane jobs in the public sector that would also be on the min wage if they were in the private. The only reason the minimum wage does not exist in the public sector is because of benchmarking gone wrong. 

And you also brought up a good point about overstaffing which really is the salt in the wound for the private sector.
i.e. not only are they being overpaid - but there are also way too many of them !! i.e. being hit on the double !

This is a major burden for the private sector to be carrying and reform is definitely required.


----------



## liaconn (5 Apr 2009)

NorthDrum said:


> Might help for you to read my other posts to see what context I was putting this in. I wasnt complaining about not getting a job.


 
You haven't made any other posts on this thread. What context should I be aware of???


----------



## liaconn (5 Apr 2009)

zxcvbnm said:


> I have to disagree with your point about the minimum wage people in the private sector.
> Firstly you were claiming that the average for the public sector is most likely skewed upwards.
> ANd now you are saying that the inclusion of minimum wgae people skews the private average downwards.
> I'm suspecting you have a bias towards the public sector given the way you choose to interpret the averages.


 

No, just showing how stats can be read either way and shouldn't be used as the SOLE basis for decision making.



Also, while many areas of the public service are overstaffed and should be trimmed back, there are other areas which are seriously under staffed, eg A&E Units, Schools' psychological services.

All I'm saying is that a one size fits all solution to the public sector pay bill won't work and is insulting to many hard working, fairly paid people.


----------



## NorthDrum (5 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> You haven't made any other posts on this thread. What context should I be aware of???


 
My mistake, I meant my posts on other threads.

Its impossible for anything meaningful to come out of a debate on private or public savings that can be made. Both sides are ignorant to the others cause or tribulations.

I was making the point that saying people didnt necessarily choose private sector over public for money. 

Far too many people on this board have a chip on their shoulder, convinced that any opinion offered in direct contradiction of theirs, is either propaganda or simply somebody championing their vested interests. I didnt realise how paranoid people in this country were . . . What ever happened to the days of accepting a valid point as that . . . A valid point . .


----------



## MOB (6 Apr 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> No because during the boom years no one wanted the public sector jobs they found it hard to fill positions, now times are bad and the people how went into the public sector are seen as money grabbers how should feel guilty for going into the service when no one else wanted to.
> 
> Well tough $hit, no guilt here. I decided to go in and have job security but rubbish pay. You can't have everything in life.



Have to concur with the criticism of this post: this is nonsense.  There may have been some trouble filling some posts in the public sector when the jobs market was at its tightest -but there was just as much trouble doing so in the private sector.  The public sector has always been a very attractive employment option in Ireland.


----------



## MOB (6 Apr 2009)

zxcvbnm said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> The only time an average is perhaps not relevant is when you are dealing with a small data set when the average can be skewed and therefore misrepresent the underlying data.



To be fair, not the only time.  It is entirely possible that the averages might not bear comparison for other reasons.  If overall the public sector has a higher percentage of people with 3rd level qualifications  than does the private sector, you would expect this to be reflected in higher average earnings overall.   The only way to deal with the thing is - so far as possible - to compare like with like.   In other words, benchmarking.  

I do have a difficulty with those who maintain that it is not valid to compare the average whilst simultaneously complaining that the public service is full of low paid workers.  Folks, it can't be both

Have we had high quality accurate work in the benchmarking carried out so far?  That is the question which really needs to be addressed.


----------



## liaconn (6 Apr 2009)

NorthDrum said:


> My mistake, I meant my posts on other threads.
> 
> 
> 
> I was making the point that saying people didnt necessarily choose private sector over public for money.


 
Fair enough. But so many people post on here, highly indignant that when they lowered themselves to apply for a public service job, they weren't snapped up immediately by a grateful Public Appointments Commission. Some of them have even gone so far as to say that this means there is definitely a 'pull' factor in getting a PS position. It never seems to occur to them that higher calibre, more impressive people applied for the same job.


----------



## NorthDrum (6 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> Fair enough. But so many people post on here, highly indignant that when they lowered themselves to apply for a public service job, they weren't snapped up immediately by a grateful Public Appointments Commission. Some of them have even gone so far as to say that this means there is definitely a 'pull' factor in getting a PS position. It never seems to occur to them that higher calibre, more impressive people applied for the same job.


 
For the record, I am not one of these people and never considered a PS job as below a private sector one (if anything I felt the opposite, most Private companies I have worked for treat their staff awfully!). 

But if what you say is so, then it pretty much backs up what i said. There were many many people who wanted to work in the public service who simply couldnt get a job with them , even during the boom years . .


----------



## liaconn (6 Apr 2009)

NorthDrum said:


> For the record, I am not one of these people and never considered a PS job as below a private sector one (if anything I felt the opposite, most Private companies I have worked for treat their staff awfully!).
> 
> But if what you say is so, then it pretty much backs up what i said. There were many many people who wanted to work in the public service who simply couldnt get a job with them , even during the boom years . .


 
I agree. But where does this leave the stupid argument (not made by you but by lots of other people on the board) that only lazy, unambitious dullards want to work in the Public Sector and all the dynamic, ambitious people look to the private sector.


----------



## Pique318 (6 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> I agree. But where does this leave the stupid argument (not made by you but by lots of other people on the board) that only lazy, unambitious dullards want to work in the Public Sector and all the dynamic, ambitious people look to the private sector.



Perhaps they're lazy unambitious 'talented' dullards


----------



## Ron Burgundy (6 Apr 2009)

Pique318 said:


> Perhaps they're lazy unambitious 'talented' dullards


 
I am what i am


----------



## NorthDrum (6 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> I agree. But where does this leave the stupid argument (not made by you but by lots of other people on the board) that only lazy, unambitious dullards want to work in the Public Sector and all the dynamic, ambitious people look to the private sector.


 
I wouldnt prescribe to that line of thought. 

Some people think - 


People in public service took jobs so they could doss and have it easy
Or 

People in Private sector took jobs with more money on offer, ignoring the job security for vast riches
Or

That the truth is not quite as black and white as these simple assumptions
I would class myself in the final bracket. 


I have a couple of friends who work in the PS who brough up the whole Pensions Levy and how PS's are being targeted etc. I discussed the side of the Private sector workers and rationally debated their side aswell. Every one of them, while still a bit pssd off, actually felt like it was actually not as bad when it was put into perspective.

Its hard to have a debate on AAM (or any website) when there are so many differant kind of people, each with differant opinions or FEELINGS on topics. You will always find at least one person who is looking simply to make a nuisance of themselves by attacking any suggestions , disinterested in actually discussing a topic.

Funnily enough, whatever is going on in the country, we all have a choice to see the worst of things, or try to look for the positives (while awknowledging the negatives).


----------



## liaconn (6 Apr 2009)

NorthDrum said:


> I wouldnt prescribe to that line of thought.
> 
> Some people think -
> 
> ...


 

Agreed.


----------



## Welfarite (7 Apr 2009)

I see this has degenerated into another boring, insulting them-versus-us thread (sigh) .... so what is the title of the thread again?


----------



## NorthDrum (7 Apr 2009)

Welfarite said:


> I see this has degenerated into another boring, insulting them-versus-us thread (sigh) .... so what is the title of the thread again?


 
The problem is that there are far too many people who are incapable of having constructive debates, if they feel too strongly about a subject.

On some debates your points are said to be bias or motivated in one way, irrespective of their relevance. But the poster ignores to actually debate valid arguements in favour of simply trying to get the other person to stoop down to their level.

"I think the pensions levy was a fair tax on a Pension that's benefits are not truely appreciated by the public service. The government should of gone further and allowed people to opt in or out of this pension benefit which would of meant that people that dont appreciate the pension could avoid the pension levy" = I am a private sector pig with no clue what I am talking about. I took a private sector job because i wanted to get rich and have no clue how hard it is in the public service. I have not even factored in how hard they work. If I had it my way, people in the public service would get no holidays, no entitled sick leave and probabley no pay.

"I think the private sector employees are feeling the pinch as much, if not more then the public service. They are getting wage decreses in all levels of employment and are generally far more fearful of losing their jobs then those with full time contracts in the PS". Well, while we do feel for people losing () their jobs, its tough luck. They chose to go for the better paid jobs over the Public sector ones they wouldnt spit on. Also, see above for more "facts".

"People in the public service , particularly in the lower wage category, are being hit twice. They are already struggling to pay the bills as it is". Tough, they have  good pension and will at least keep their jobs . .

I could go on, but you get my meaning . . .


----------



## Welfarite (7 Apr 2009)

...And I thought there was a ban on PS bashing in place?


----------



## NorthDrum (7 Apr 2009)

Welfarite said:


> ...And I thought there was a ban on PS bashing in place?


 
Whos is PS bashing . . .

Im just making a point that, generally, neither side is capable of rationally discussing many issues in relation to the others industry, my previous post just highlights how ignorant *both* sides can be to the others cause. . .

Unless of course there is a ban on ignoramus bashing . . .


----------



## liaconn (7 Apr 2009)

NorthDrum hasn't been doing any 'bashing'. He's made some valid points re the Public Sector and has also admitted that PS posters have valid points to make as well. The bottom line is that neither the public nor the private sector are perfect and we could all learn stuff from each other if we stopped shouting for long enough and were prepared to budge a bit from our original stances.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> NorthDrum hasn't been doing any 'bashing'. He's made some valid points re the Public Sector and has also admitted that PS posters have valid points to make as well. The bottom line is that neither the public nor the private sector are perfect and we could all learn stuff from each other if we stopped shouting for long enough and were prepared to budge a bit from our original stances.



Well said.


----------



## NorthDrum (7 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> NorthDrum hasn't been doing any 'bashing'. He's made some valid points re the Public Sector and has also admitted that PS posters have valid points to make as well. The bottom line is that neither the public nor the private sector are perfect and we could all learn stuff from each other if we stopped shouting for long enough and were prepared to budge a bit from our original stances.


 

100% :thumbsup:

There is so much distrust on both sides, its a very difficult topic to debate rationally (hence the ban).

Its a shame really as I think alot could be done if both sides could sit down, genuinly empathise with the other (instead of hollow support) and work out how they can work together to improve things . .


----------



## Welfarite (7 Apr 2009)

Hmmm... my last post seems to have been taken up completely the wrong way. Sorry folks. All I meant to do was ADD to Northdrum's great post by pointing out that I did indeed get the meaning of it (most of it was in quotation marks after all)! I thought the three points before the first word would indicate that. My sarcasm didn't come across, perhaps I should've added ?


----------



## NorthDrum (7 Apr 2009)

Welfarite said:


> Hmmm... my last post seems to have been taken up completely the wrong way. Sorry folks. All I meant to do was ADD to Northdrum's great post by pointing out that I did indeed get the meaning of it (most of it was in quotation marks after all)! I thought the three points before the first word would indicate that. My sarcasm didn't come across, perhaps I should've added ?


 
Ah thats Fair enough. 

I have that same trouble with emails with friends, sometimes they can get upset because sarcasm doesnt always transfer well written down!! .


----------



## gipimann (7 Apr 2009)

If proof were needed that AAM is on the pulse.....

Today's budget has made provision for "shorter working year scheme", where all civil servants (not just those with children who could apply for term time) can apply for between 2 and 13 weeks unpaid leave per year......Mass exodus in July/August then?!


----------



## becky (7 Apr 2009)

gipimann said:


> If proof were needed that AAM is on the pulse.....
> 
> Today's budget has made provision for "shorter working year scheme", where all civil servants (not just those with children who could apply for term time) can apply for between 2 and 13 weeks unpaid leave per year......Mass exodus in July/August then?!


 
I was wondering why this wasn't extended to the wider public service.


----------



## gipimann (8 Apr 2009)

Becky, I think the plan is to extend it to the wider service.


----------



## Shawady (8 Apr 2009)

gipimann said:


> If proof were needed that AAM is on the pulse.....
> 
> Today's budget has made provision for "shorter working year scheme", where all civil servants (not just those with children who could apply for term time) can apply for between 2 and 13 weeks unpaid leave per year......Mass exodus in July/August then?!


 
Yes and a couple of months back, someone on AAM suggested paid career breaks for civil servants, which is another scheme the government have put in place.
Maybe AAM posters should form a party and run for government.........


----------



## becky (8 Apr 2009)

gipimann said:


> Becky, I think the plan is to extend it to the wider service.


 
Without doubt.  We were talking there and concluded that they want to see what the update of the early retirement scheme will be first.  I personally can see a lot of young nurses for example availing of it so they can do a bit of travelling with the guarantee they will have a job afterwards.


----------



## Welfarite (16 Apr 2009)

Shawady said:


> Maybe AAM posters should form a party and run for government.........


 

....but I thought we WERE the government.


----------



## Chocks away (16 Apr 2009)

Only in absentia. And we don't take very long holidays


----------

