# Irish Workers Highest Paid



## TLC

Anyone any thoughts on the report from Prices and Earnings Report from Swiss Bank UBS?  Not surprising but were high wages & costs a result of the overheating property prices - or the other way round?  They say despite the collapse of the property market prices are still 10th most expensive city in the world.


----------



## Protocol

I don't think Irish *industrial workers* on 25k-40k are overpaid.

The following are overpaid:

landlords (commercial rents way too high)
bank executives
most other executives
barristers
solicitors (even though many are unemployed)
medical consultants
dentists
judges
teachers + guards (well more like underworked in terms of days)


----------



## Protocol

I forgot:

auditors fees
accountants fees


----------



## Protocol

TLC said:


> They say despite the collapse of the property market prices are still 10th most expensive city in the world.


 

Yes, our commercial rents are still too high.

Pubs and shops are shutting all over the place - due to excessive rental and property costs.


----------



## partisan

The report didn't say Dubliners were the highest paid, or even the fourth highest paid. It said Dubliners were the 10th highest paid. A league table of total cost per employee to each employer would likely put Dubliners even further down the table - because of low employers prsi.

Dubliners after tax incomes were the fourth highest, because of low personal taxes in Ireland (and remained fourth highest even when adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity). 

This report is not evidence of high wages and costs!

[broken link removed]


----------



## BeanPole

The real issue is that social welfare rates and minimum wage rates in this company are artificially inflating prices and wage levels in this country:
[broken link removed]

We have the second highest min wage in Europe behind Lux, and a rate of unemployment benefit that pays out in excess of the minumum wage rates in every single one of the new EU countries. 

In order to get some realism back into the economy again, we need to cut UB from north of €250 per week down to €70 - 90 per week, and cut the minimum wage by at least 50%.

Painful medicine, but it needs to be done


----------



## Cat101

BeanPole said:


> In order to get some realism back into the economy again, we need to cut UB from north of €250 per week down to €70 - 90 per week, and cut the minimum wage by at least 50%.


Do you really think that's the answer? 
Could you survive on €70 a week?


----------



## Towger

Cat101 said:


> Do you really think that's the answer?
> Could you survive on €70 a week?



Well they manage on no much more in the UK.


----------



## Cat101

Towger said:


> Well they manage on no much more in the UK.


Oh well that's okay then!

Familys being forced to live in poverty...Are you people serious?


----------



## BeanPole

I could easily survive on €200+ per week, plus some or all of the following:
[broken link removed]

My point is that there needs to be an incentive for people to work. Otherwise you end up with a whole raft of society becoming reliant on government handouts


----------



## BeanPole

Cat101 said:


> Familys being forced to live in poverty...Are you people serious?


 
No one is being "forced" to do anything. As a society we cannot afford the welfare state we have built around us. We need to encourage people to get out and into employment as quickly as we can.


----------



## Cat101

BeanPole said:


> My point is that there needs to be an incentive for people to work. Otherwise you end up with a whole raft of society becoming reliant on government handouts


 I think the Irish public deserve more credit than that. People *do* want to work as they did during the boom time. With businesses and factorys closing down every day what are people suppose to do?


----------



## BeanPole

Cat101 said:


> With businesses and factorys closing down every day what are people suppose to do?


 
Time to lower your sights a bit. 

To spell out my points yet again:

1) We, as a people, can no longer afford to pay high welfare rates. As one contributor has pointed out, our UB payments are more than three times those offered in the UK. I think most sensible Irish people understand this.

2) We should not have an incentive for people to sit on the dole waiting for a job similar to their previous one to miracluously appear. As you have pointed out, there are businesses closing everyday. However, there are also huge shortages of staff in the service industry (eateries, cleaning companies, etc), and no real incentive for anyone to fill these roles which is part of the reason why we still have immigration into this country. 

Time for a collective wake up call on this one.


----------



## samanthajane

BeanPole said:


> We need to encourage people to get out and into employment as quickly as we can.


 
How can you say that when there is not enough jobs around for everyone at the moment. 

There is a huge difference with people not wanting to work, and people who just cant get a job at the moment. 

If this was 5 years ago i would totally agree with you, i think we all know at least someone, who was capable of work just didn't want to work, and was happy to spend their lives on benefits. 

For those people yes they should be on the bare minimum for them to see that they would be much better off working than claiming social welfare, but you cant seperate between the two at the moment. 

I dont see the goverment has any choice at the moment, you cant expect someone that used to have a good paying job to suddenly survive on €70. 

Yes i agree our minimum wage should be reduced but not 50%, i heard lots of people mention the difference in prices between the uk and Ireland ( me being one of them ) but you cant have things both ways. You cant expect high wages and then pay the same prices as the uk.


----------



## Cat101

BeanPole said:


> . However, there are also huge shortages of staff in the service industry (eateries, cleaning companies, etc).


These jobs would be in the minimum wage catagory...which you recommend should be cut by 50%. What would that be; €3 an hour?
People and their familys suffer terribly when they loose a good job and have to seek UB. To suggest that they have no incentive to work is insulting to them.


----------



## samanthajane

BeanPole said:


> However, there are also huge shortages of staff in the service industry (eateries, cleaning companies, etc), and no real incentive for anyone to fill these roles which is part of the reason why we still have immigration into this country.


 
I dont think it's just because there's no incentive for people to want to do these jobs. It's the employer as well. 

My bf has a leaflet distribution comapany, i've lost count of the number of people that have come to him looking for work in the last 5-6 months. And i'd say 90% of these people are not immigrants. He has even lost a friendship over this as he didn't have the work to employ someone else and his friend said he should "get rid" of one of his foreign workers and give him the job instead. My bf refused to do this. 

The lads we have working for us are bloody hard workers will come in no matter what the weather is, or if they are feeling a bit under the weather, you can rely on them. 

This friend only wanted a job untill something better came along he had no intention of doing this long term, the poor guy we sacked cant get work anywhere else and goes home. Then when things pick up we have no one to work for us, and that then effects his business. 

I'm sure he's not the only employer that will think this way.


----------



## steve1234

Cat101 said:


> Oh well that's okay then!
> 
> Familys being forced to live in poverty...Are you people serious?


No we just need to cut the cost of living for essential items at the same rate as SW cuts then there standard of living doesent change. Should be pretty easy as we pay over the odds for everything in this country compared other countries.


----------



## Purple

steve1234 said:


> No we just need to cut the cost of living for essential items at the same rate as SW cuts then there standard of living doesent change. Should be pretty easy as we pay over the odds for everything in this country compared other countries.


 Cutting wages and other imput costs will lower prices.


----------



## BeanPole

Purple said:


> Cutting wages and other imput costs will lower prices.


 
Agreed - and the first pay cuts should be on the sheltered sector in the public service.

An across the board pay cut of 20% should make any reduction in minimum wage and social welfare payments a lot more palatable and equitable


----------



## steve1234

BeanPole said:


> Agreed - and the first pay cuts should be on the sheltered sector in the public service.
> 
> An across the board pay cut of 20% should make any reduction in minimum wage and social welfare payments a lot more palatable and equitable


How about cutting vat to 0% for people on SW for essential items.
Then cut 12.5% off the SW allowance.
So then the 210 dole cheque a week now becomes  183.50
People could swipe there social card in shops or the number taken down.
It means there standard of living is not changing.
Also cuts out some SW money being spent on booze and smokes and people with there mates claiming for them while there in thailand and australia wont get the benifit either.


----------



## BeanPole

steve1234 said:


> How about cutting vat to 0% for people on SW for essential items.
> Then cut 12.5% off the SW allowance.
> So then the 210 dole cheque a week now becomes 183.50
> People could swipe there social card in shops or the number taken down.
> It means there standard of living is not changing.
> Also cuts out some SW money being spent on booze and smokes and people with there mates claiming for them while there in thailand and australia wont get the benifit either.


 
Totally impractical. 

Can you imagine the IT infrastruate and potential for fraud this could enstail? It would also represent another disincentive for people not to get back into work.

An across the board cut of 20%, and a cap of €100 per household member on social welfare entitlements is what is needed


----------



## Purple

We have some of the highest paid politicians and judiciary in the world but we also have the highest paid teachers in the world. I’m not picking on teachers, I’m sure the same applies to other sectors, but the details are to hand in [broken link removed] report.


----------



## Lilly2099

Towger said:


> Well they manage on no much more in the UK.


 

The UK dont pay the same prices for goods and services we do and have 
much lower VAT rates and a lower cost of living. They have a much more competitive markets in, Insurance, Phone providers(both landline and mobile), Electrical and heating service providers etc etc


----------



## Purple

Lilly2099 said:


> The UK dont pay the same prices for goods and services we do and have
> much lower VAT rates and a lower cost of living. They have a much more competitive markets in, Insurance, Phone providers(both landline and mobile), Electrical and heating service providers etc etc


It can just as easily be said that the cost of living in the UK is lower because they pay themselves less.


----------



## Lilly2099

Purple said:


> It can just as easily be said that the cost of living in the UK is lower because they pay themselves less.


 
This is true however we cannot expect to have the minum wage and social welfare cut and have the people who are receiving these to still have to pay the same prices for goods we are paying now. If we are to reduce the social welafare and min wage and or wages in general, VAT rates should come down as should the overpricing on pretty much everything we pay for in this country.


----------



## sunrock

This reminds me of the high prices we used have in our supermarkets and all the appeals by our politicians and consumer advocates to get them to reduce their prices.
The supermarkets trotted out their P.R. people...listing all their high costs and promising they would try harder....result was prices didn`t come down.
Fast forward to our present poorer consumer and the prices are coming down...no need for appeals.
Am I correct in saying ther has been no salary cuts or reverse benchmarking implemented for our public service......surely we should start at the top.


----------



## Purple

Lilly2099 said:


> This is true however we cannot expect to have the minum wage and social welfare cut and have the people who are receiving these to still have to pay the same prices for goods we are paying now. If we are to reduce the social welafare and min wage and or wages in general, VAT rates should come down as should the overpricing on pretty much everything we pay for in this country.


The price is set by what the market will pay for a particular good or service. If people have less to spend then the price will come down.


----------



## Protocol

Purple said:


> We have some of the highest paid politicians and judiciary in the world but we also have the highest paid teachers in the world. I’m not picking on teachers, I’m sure the same applies to other sectors, but the details are to hand in [broken link removed] report.


 
I'd continue by saying that we have the highest paid of most occupations in the world..........haven't we?

Medical consultant (pure public) = 240K....we are told that it's double or triple the German equivalent

Etc., etc.


----------



## Protocol

sunrock said:


> Am I correct in saying ther has been no salary cuts or reverse benchmarking implemented for our public service......surely we should start at the top.


 
Incorrect, as all public service workers (excl. judges and comm semi-states) pay an extra tax / pension levy / pay cut.


----------



## Bronte

samanthajane said:


> The lads we have working for us are bloody hard workers will come in no matter what the weather is, or if they are feeling a bit under the weather, you can rely on them.


 
SJ I'm interested in this point, do you mean your bf prefers to hire non nationals as he has found them to be better workers than Irish people?

I also thought it was interesting in a long queue for jobs in Lidl ( or somesuch) which had mostly non nationals.


----------



## BeanPole

Bronte said:


> I also thought it was interesting in a long queue for jobs in Lidl ( or somesuch) which had mostly non nationals.


 
Why is this? I'd imagine its because social welfare rates for Irish people are just too high to encourage them to take these roles. 

This is why our over-generous social welfare system creates such a huge poverty trap. Time to cut the dole to well under €100 per week, as in the UK


----------



## onq

Protocol said:


> I don't think Irish *industrial workers* on 25k-40k are overpaid.
> 
> The following are overpaid:
> 
> landlords (commercial rents way too high)
> bank executives
> most other executives
> barristers
> solicitors (even though many are unemployed)
> medical consultants
> dentists
> judges
> teachers + guards (well more like underworked in terms of days)



Really?

Do you think the average 30-40K an architect actually makes [not his sales figure] after 5 years study and seven years learning the ropes is a good return for his years of training.
Does it accuratly reflect the level of design ability, contractual competence, technical ability they have or the vicarious liability and fiduciary responsibility they carry?
Or do you think people who can be sued unto their estate if they "do their jobs badly" should be paid a little extra on top of that?
Look at the ones who have carried big offices aroudn for a decade.
Looking like they're having nervous breakdowns now.
Offices gone from 210 to 10 people, some of them.

And this isn't an unusual event - the cyclical nature of the building industry means that most architects will suffer badly from an economic downturn at least twice in their careers.

And what about Barristers?
They spend several years "deviling" during which they earn very little - assuming they can get attached to a good barrister to learn the ropes in the first place.
They spend on average 10 to fifteen years post grad  just learning one or two area of the law to be competent and then they "may" become senior counsel.
They get to work with some of the worst scumbags on the planet every day of the week - their clients.
When they're not giving the performance of their lives to sway the court theyre are engaged in high pressure meetings and negotiations.
They are expected to master a - usually - complex brief and develop a winning strategy for their clients whwo may have no cards to play.
A small percentage of these actually earn high fees, but all have to maintain their offices/places in the Law Library and very few earn much in the first 5-10 years.
While they cannot be sued a officers of the court for doign their job badly, they, like architects have no place to hide - the perform in the spotlight and failure brings its own reward.

That's just two professions I am familiar with.

Of course we've seen what happens when head bankers do their jobs badly - they still get their [reduced] bonuses on top of a salary of over €500,000.

And we've seen what the heads of building companies get - guarantees from the taxpayer.

And we've seen what the politicians who approve of all of this get - across all political parties - pensions while they are still in office.

Some people are definitely getting preferential treatment, but don't assume its the competent, qualified professionals.

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## sparkeee

i take it some of the above are not on unemployment benefit?


----------



## Complainer

onq said:


> They get to work with some of the worst scumbags on the planet every day of the week - their clients.


Ah hold on there. Please don't talk like that about our property developers and venture capitalists. It might be true, but....


----------



## samanthajane

Bronte said:


> SJ I'm interested in this point, do you mean your bf prefers to hire non nationals as he has found them to be better workers than Irish people?
> 
> I also thought it was interesting in a long queue for jobs in Lidl ( or somesuch) which had mostly non nationals.


 
No what i meant is when they started working for us 3 years ago they were the only people that would do this work. You didn't have a hope of an irish person wanting to go out and walk around delivering leaflets all day. In the beginning he did offer the work to friends that wern't working and none of them wanted the job!!! 

There is no way he would let one of these guys go now just to employ a friend or anyone else. 

We have had a few non nationals work for us and they didn't even last a day let alone the week. I would say 90% of our workforce is polish. It not that he prefers them, he will give anyone a chance to earn a few quid if the work is there, but for us they have proven to be the best workers across the board.


----------



## MOB

sparkeee said:


> i take it some of the above are not on unemployment benefit?



I am quite sure that there are many, many architects on unemployment benefit right now (solicitors too for that matter). 

I am also quite sure that there are many barristers subsisting on an income which is a lot less than unemployment benefit - for periods of anything up to three years after qualifying ( after three years, if you are not heading toward making a living by year five, you would be unusually tenacious to stick at it.)


----------



## Purple

onq said:


> Really?
> 
> Do you think the average 30-40K an architect actually makes [not his sales figure] after 5 years study and seven years learning the ropes is a good return for his years of training.






onq said:


> And what about Barristers?
> They spend several years "deviling" during which they earn very little - assuming they can get attached to a good barrister to learn the ropes in the first place.
> They spend on average 10 to fifteen years post grad  just learning one or two area of the law to be competent and then they "may" become senior counsel.



How much time someone spends in college should have no bearing what so ever on how much they earn. How much their skills are worth to a client or/and employer should be the sole factor in determining their income. If the time in college adds to the open market value of their skills then great but qualification and time spend in and or themselves are no reason to demand higher pay. 

There are far too many solicitors in this country, that’s been obvious for years but the good news is that it will result in better value for the consumer. The same is the case with taxi drivers. I presume the same is now the case with architects and hopefully someday the same will be the case with doctors, the last of the closed professions.


----------



## csirl

Dole is way too high. People forget that it excludes accommodation costs which are paid out of rent allowance etc.

People should be able to feed and clothe themselves for way less than €210 per week.


----------



## BeanPole

+1

Don't forget you can also apply for Mortgage Interest / Rent supplement, the Medical Card, Smokeless Fuel Allowance, and a whole lot more bens.

This madness has to stop.

In the UK, you get £47.95 per week if aged between 16-24, and £60.50 per week if aged over 25. There is no reason why we should pay three times the level of dole payments in the UK


----------



## Stonesie

Isn't it only people who've worked for 2 years and recently become unemployed get over 200 per week, and its only temporary.

going from employment to below 100 would be tough for anyone. this high dole is temporary and makes complete economic sense. People who's jobs are currently at risk are not  absolutely petrified to spend any money they currently get, if they were more job losses are guaranteed.


----------



## Protocol

Yes, you have to have paid PRSI to be entitled to JSB.

JSB lasts for 9 or 12 months.


JSA is means-tested and lasts forever.


----------



## onq

Purple said:


> How much time someone spends in college should have no bearing what so ever on how much they earn. How much their skills are worth to a client or/and employer should be the sole factor in determining their income. If the time in college adds to the open market value of their skills then great but qualification and time spend in and or themselves are no reason to demand higher pay.



That is total and complete nonsense.
People aren't going to train for years and give up a decade of earnings to take on increased responsibility for nothing.
Remuneration is the reward offered by a capitalist society and that is what's expected.
If people see they cannot get paid for what they do they will seek alternative employment.

You seem to be assuming that simply anyone can waltz into a career in the professions and become a success - you're dead wrong there.
The numbert of people attending at third level, never mind qualifying with a marketable profession or skill in the private sector is relatively small for any given generation.

You seem to totally fail to see that what a person earns over his lifetime determines his standard of living and ultimately the quality of life when he retires.
Professional study and the early years in professional practice take away the first 10-12 years of one's earning potential through study and minimally paid work.
This occurs at the start of one's career - at a time when your mates in paid enployment are able to afford cars, entertainment, taking girls our to dinner, foreign holdays - and when money put into a pension fund will multiply to the greates effect.
The latter is reason alone to justify high fees to pay catch-up with non-professionals.

You effectively have no money to invest in pensions or put away in savings.
You thus truncate your earning potential by 20-25% over an average 45-year career.
In fact you are paying out money on digs and fees and books and study trips with no income coming in.

Professionals feel its appropriate to charge more for your services otherwise they'll never reclaim that deficit.
All professionals offer a level of advice in their field that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" cannot aspire to.
This is what they are paid for and the standard they are held to should matters do haywire and proceed to Court.
Joe worker can rely on the rule that "the master is liable for the torts of his servant" - not so the professional.
So before you criticise professionals for their fees, learn what it means to be and to become a professional.

This is not to defend outrageous monies earned by some professionals, but even this is the market [people who retain professionals] believing that "you get what you pay for".
This isn't necessarily the case in professional terms and a small committed office can easily offer a service matching the integrity and professionalism of a larger firm or a "name" firm - the market doesn't see this, and so the bigger offices get bigger and the smaller ones trundle among.
Smaller firms are capable of designing housing estates, but its usually for one or two loyal clients.
They could probably take on more residential estate work , but  simply don't get the numbers of schemes being offered that the larger office get - such is life.
Size seems to matter in professional life as in elsewhere and you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Sometimes its not fair - its just a matter of who gets to the seats first.

Of course going to the marketplace and winning clients isn't something that Joe worker knows much about - he is paid for his time or his skill or his organizational abilities.
The directors and marketing people face that grind of seeking new work in adverst trading conditions.
Oh wait - they're better paid, too... see the connection?
Now granted some of them are freebooters, but don't tell me you haven't worked with Joe worker and seen some of  the office maestros at goofing off doing their thang.
Workers are no different to professionals and management when it comes to that and there are a lot more of them.

But let's for the minute assume your equal-paid utopia comes to pass - this actually happened - as far as it could - in Soviet Russia.
Taxi drivers and mocrobacteriologists earnt €600 per month in Moscow in 1the 1980's - no inflation there, boyos.
The former got his driving license, his plate, his car, put petrol in and went out to work.
The latter spent up ot 14 years perfecting his qualification.
They each got paid the same.
This information was supplied by the Microbacteriologist I shared midnight tea with on the train from Moscow to Leningrad.
This only works if there is free housing for those who need it, and state aid and medical care for all - which again happened in Soviet Russia.
In other words, there is no loss of earning potential and your basic needs are met by the State.
But this low level of reward promoted ridiculous levels of black marketeering.
For example


it cost 600 Roubles a month to run a Taxi
Taxi men earned 600 Roubles a month.
So what did the Taxi man live on?

Now address this to capitalism:
This levelling drift cannot work in a free market economy.
Many people dissillusioned with the projected earning potential and the quality of their life for the first decade after college because of no promise of money thereafter to spur them on will simply choose not to study.
Those professionals who remain in practice will be swamped with demands for their services.
They will put up their fees and the highest payers will get their services.
You will end up with a less egalitarian society, not more, if you pursue your "ideal" to its logical consequences.

There are plenty of solicitors, accountants and professionals out there who exist, not at the Superstar Level, but on €30-40K/annum.
That's pretty close to the industrial wage IIRC - and you want to tell them they should earn less?

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## BeanPole

Protocol said:


> JSA is means-tested and lasts forever.


 
Isn't that the problem? Should be cut after 12 months.


----------



## Stonesie

BeanPole said:


> Isn't that the problem? Should be cut after 12 months.


 

Not sure what you mean Beanpole, but not many get over 200 when you lose JSB, 

JSA is means tested, is far less than 200 and is very hard to get if your not single. 

So no, welfare levels are not the problem, so please don't criticise the recently unemployed for not having an "incentive" 

In my opinion the cuts should come from an obviously over-paid public sector- but that will never happen

Revenue should come by charging those who can afford them for public services, e.g. 3rd level education, means tested medical care, water charges etc but this will never happen either


----------



## Stonesie

I wouldn'tagree with the arguement if you cut welfare payments and the minimum wage prices will come down and everything will be fine.

What needs to hapen first is rents come down (not the unemployed's area), then prices will fall, (again not the unemployed's area) and only whe prices fall by 50% is it reasonable to suggest cutting the minimum wages by 50% is a good idea


----------



## Purple

onq said:


> That is total and complete nonsense.
> People aren't going to train for years and give up a decade of earnings to take on increased responsibility for nothing.
> Remuneration is the reward offered by a capitalist society and that is what's expected.
> If people see they cannot get paid for what they do they will seek alternative employment.


 Are you suggesting that people should be paid more than their customers are willing (or able) to pay simply because they have spent a long time being educated?



onq said:


> Plus, you seem to be assuming that simply anyone can waltz into a career in the professions and become a success - you're dead wrong there.


 Anyone with the requisite aptitude and ability should be able to enter any profession.   



onq said:


> The numbert of people attending at third level, never mind qualifying with a marketable profession or skill in the private sector is relatively small for any given generation.


 The number of newly qualified solicitors entering the market doubled between 1988 and 1998 and doubles again between 1998 and 2008 ([broken link removed]). Are you suggesting that they should all be well paid simply by virtue of the fact that they spend a long time getting qualified? If so can you let us know who should pay them?



onq said:


> You fail to see that what a person earns over his lifetime determines his standard of living and ultimately the quality of life when he retires.


 How do you deduce that?



onq said:


> Professional study and the early years of a practice taked away the first 5-12 years of earning potential through study and minimally paid work.
> 
> This occurs at the start of your career - especially at a time when your mates in paid enployment are able to afford cars, entertainment, taking girls our to dinner, foreign holdays - all the trappings of success.
> 
> You have no money to invest in pensions or put away in savings.
> You effectively truncate your earning potential by 25-20% over an average 45-year career, in fact you are paying out money on digs and fees and books and study trips with no income coming in.


 They do this in the reasonable belief that their skills will be valuable to the market and so they will get a good  return on their investment. 



onq said:


> of course its appropriate to charge more for your services otherwise you'll never reclaim that deficit.


 So a shop owner should charge more simply because he spent a fortune building a kick-ass shop? ...or maybe he should only build a kick-ass shop if he thinks there is a market for one and he can get a good ROI.



onq said:


> All professionals offer a level of advice in their field that "the man on the Clapham omnibus cannot aspite to" - this is what they are paid for and the standard they are held to should matters do haywire and proceed to Court.
> Joe worker can rely on the rule that "the master is liable for the torts of his servant" - not so the professional.


 Now that’s rubbish. Any self employed carpenter can be held to account for his work. That’s  why they pay insurance. That’s why “professionals” pay insurance. 



onq said:


> So before you go criticising professionals for what they charge, leanr a little about what it means to be a professional.
> This is not to defend outrageous monies earned by some professional, but this is also the market believing that "you get what you pay for".


 I’m not criticising what professionals charge. I am saying that what they charge is set by what the market is willing to pay for their skills and has no direct relation to how long they spent in college, how much they spent on their qualification or how many bells and whistles they have. For example  GP “A” may only have the basic qualifications necessary to open a practice while GP “B” may have extra qualifications hanging out of their ying-yang. If more people like GP “A” they can charge more because the market will stand higher prices for their services. 



onq said:


> This isn't the case in professional terms and a small committed office can easily offer a service matching the integrity and professionalism of a larger firm or a "name" firm - the market doesn't see this, and so the bigger offices get bigger and the smaller ones trundle among.
> 
> Smaller firms are capable of designing housing estates, but its usually for one or two loyal clients.
> They could probably take on more residential estate work , but  simply don't get the numbers of schemes being offered that the larger office get - such is life.
> Size seems to matter in professional life as in elsewhere and you pays your money and you takes your choice.


 Large (Law) firms offer a depth and breadth of skills that smaller offices do not. For large companies/ large cases economies of scale justify much larger spends for these skills, but still it’s  the market deciding the price that can be charged.  



onq said:


> Sometimes its not fair - its a matter of who gets to the seats first.
> Of course going to the marketplace and winning clients isn't something that Joe worker knows much about - he is paid for his time or his skill or his organizational abilities or whatever.
> Only the directors and marketing people face that grind of seeking new work in adverst trading conditions.


 I suggest that the average plumber knows more about that than the average socicitor.



onq said:


> But let's for the minute assume your equal-paid utopia comes to pass - this actually happened - as far as it could - in Soviet Russia.
> This only works if there is free housing for those who need it, and state aid and health care for all - which again happened in Soviet Russia.
> Even there you had the ridiculous levels of black marketeering - it cost 600 Roubles to run a Taxi in 1988 in Moscow - Taxi men earned 600 Roubles - the same as a Microbacteriologist I shared midnight tea with on the train from Moscos to Leningrad - what did the Taxi man live on? Exactly.


 What on earth are you talking about? I am saying that the market should set the price, you are not; I am arguing for a capitalist model, you are not.



onq said:


> Now address capitalism
> This levelling drift cannot work in a free market economy.
> Many people dissillusioned with their life for the first decade after college and no promise of money thereafter to spur them on will simply choose not to study.
> The professionals who remain in practice will be swamped with demands for their services and will put up their fees and the highest payers will win.
> You will end up with a less egalitarian society, not more, if you pursue your thoughts to the logical consequences.


 What’s your solution, should the state pay professionals a subsidy if the market will not stand the fees they wish to charge in order to have the lifestyle their years of study justify? 



onq said:


> BTW, there are plenty of solicitors, accountants and professionals out there who exist, not at the Superstar Level, but on €30-40K/annum.
> That's pretty close to the industrial wage IIRC - and you want to tell them they have to earn less.
> I have news for you - they are!


I know they are, my sister is a solicitor. I am simply pointing out that the buyer (the market) sets the rate, not the seller. 



onq said:


> I'll be looking for a tax rebate this year if things keep going the way they are.


 You have my sympathies, genuinely (for what little they are worth) but that’s the nature of things.


----------



## Purple

Stonesie said:


> I wouldn'tagree with the arguement if you cut welfare payments and the minimum wage prices will come down and everything will be fine.
> 
> What needs to hapen first is rents come down (not the unemployed's area), then prices will fall, (again not the unemployed's area) and only whe prices fall by 50% is it reasonable to suggest cutting the minimum wages by 50% is a good idea



If nobody can afford the rent what do you thnk the landlords will do?
I agree that pay cuts will not solve everything. This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ could not solve everything at this stage.


----------



## Stonesie

But the landlords should take the hit first, sequence is important, can't start with the unemployed and low paid as they are the most vulnerable,


----------



## shanegl

> Remuneration is the reward offered by a capitalist society and that is what's expected.


Remuneration is set by the market. This idea you have that spending years studying should automatically mean you're entitled to a certain level of pay is complete nonsense in that context.


----------



## Bronte

onq said:


> taking girls our to dinner,


 
This is 2009, where does a man have the idea he needs to to pay for a woman's dinner?  I'm gobsmacked at this.  And you even think it's a sign of success.  Oh dear.  

In relation to rents, as a landlord I've seen no reduction in my rent since the last social welfare cut, my tenants never mentioned it so I am assuming the tenant is taking the hit themselves and that they can afford it, but I did reduce one rent for someone who had taken a pay cut.


----------



## Purple

Stonesie said:


> But the landlords should take the hit first, sequence is important, can't start with the unemployed and low paid as they are the most vulnerable,



That just doesn't happen, how would the landlord set the price?
They can only react to market demand.


----------



## BeanPole

+1


----------



## Stonesie

Purple said:


> That just doesn't happen, how would the landlord set the price?
> They can only react to market demand.


 

Landlords are already reducing rent, because of falling demand, 

As rents have only fallen by about 10% I will argue against any suggestion to cut social welfare or the minimum wage by 50%, as I think to do this would cause alot of damage to the wider economy


At the moment, maybe the long term dole and the minimum wage could be cut by 10% but I do not think it would improve much regarding our current economic problems or high prices.


----------



## BeanPole

Stonesie said:


> Landlords are already reducing rent, because of falling demand,
> 
> As rents have only fallen by about 10% I will argue against any suggestion to cut social welfare or the minimum wage by 50%, as I think to do this would cause alot of damage to the wider economy.


 
Nonsense

How does freeing up the labour market damage the economy? By allowing wealth creators access to a lower cost supply of labour, you are stopping jobs being shipped overseas, and also ensuring that producers can offer their output at a lower price to the consumer.



Stonesie said:


> At the moment, maybe the long term dole and the minimum wage could be cut by 10% but I do not think it would improve much regarding our current economic problems or high prices.


 
Why ever not?

As a society, we cannont afford to have people languishing on the dole for years on end. It is not fair on the individual and it is not fair on those paying their taxes to perpetuate this poverty trap.

Far better to radically reduce / eliminate both JSA and the mininum wage to get people back into the workforce.

Tinkering around the edges by cutting 10% off will, as you have identified have minimal impact. We need to be far more radical


----------



## Stonesie

Most pople agree this recession is demand led, i.e people don't want to spend. Cutting the safety net longterm workers currently have will not do anything to fix this, and will not reduce any poverty trap because supply of labour isn't the problem.

Also the cornerstone of any successful economy is stability, radical policy create shocks and uncertainty which rarely benefit anyone. 

I can only think someone who argues cutting the minimum wage by 50% will REDUCE poverty doesn't know anyone on the minimum wage.


----------



## Purple

I think 50% is way too much but a reduction in welfare and the minimum wage slightly greater than the rate of deflation would be a good idea.


----------



## sparkeee

allow yourselves to live on the equivalent dole money for few weeks and then come back with your replies,i am sure there would be a lot less snobbery after.


----------



## Purple

sparkeee said:


> allow yourselves to live on the equivalent dole money for few weeks and then come back with your replies,i am sure there would be a lot less snobbery after.


I have lived on far less (adjusted down for inflation) and it was damn hard but at least it wasn’t a hand out; I earned it . 
This is about what the state can afford to pay, you know nothing about any of the posters on this thread so maybe it's you with the preconditions and snobbery problem.


----------



## onq

Girlf said:


> Onq - There was a guy on thepropertypin blowing a few months back about all the years architects spend studying and their great skills etc.
> Can an architecture degree not be obtained in the standard 4 years, similar to other professions? Doesn't every professional have to 'learn the ropes' subsequent to college?



I wasn't drawing a distinction between architects and other professions.

An architects degree takes five years in Ireland and it is strongly recommended you take a year off, usually after 3rd year, to an initial gain experience of how and office is run and the duties you might face.

Some people decide to do other courses after they see just how "glamorous" the life is - LOL!

When I was qualified it was expected that you worked in an practice and learnt the ropes from senior architects for 2 years and then do a Part III exam or seven years after which you were deemed to have your part III's.

So that's a minimum of between 8 and 13 years before you could call yourself a competent architect - in theory.

ONQ.


----------



## onq

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that people should be paid more than their customers are willing (or able) to pay simply because they have spent a long time being educated?



I'm saying that there is a price below which people will not sell their skills after so many years of study and low pay.



> Anyone with the requisite aptitude and ability should be able to enter any profession.



People tend to divide into numerate and non-numerate.
I've yet to meet a former accountant working as a hair stylist.
I've never met a former beautician working in a science laboratory.
Both numerate and non-numerate people may be intelligent, articulate and learn quickly, but they will probably never cross their respective Rubicons.



> The number of newly qualified solicitors entering the market doubled between 1988 and 1998 and doubles again between 1998 and 2008 ([broken link removed]). Are you suggesting that they should all be well paid simply by virtue of the fact that they spend a long time getting qualified? If so can you let us know who should pay them?



I'm saying there is a rate they will not work below for the responsibility and the pressure they have to deal with, based partly on the years of study they have put in.



> How do you deduce that?



Its fairly obvious, unless they receive an inheritance.



> They do this in the reasonable belief that their skills will be valuable to the market and so they will get a good  return on their investment.



No, its not all determined by what the market will pay - its a balance between what the market will pay and what the seller must make to stay in business, compounded by the back that he/she is making up for over a decade of low pay.



> So a shop owner should charge more simply because he spent a fortune building a kick-ass shop? ...or maybe he should only build a kick-ass shop if he thinks there is a market for one and he can get a good ROI.



Now you're thinking correctly - know any shop owners with a sign saying "charitable institution" over the door? Didn't think so.



> Now that’s rubbish. Any self employed carpenter can be held to account for his work. That’s  why they pay insurance. That’s why “professionals” pay insurance.



I was drawing a distinction between a professional and a non-professional. Tradesmen are a different kettle of fish again.



> I’m not criticising what professionals charge. I am saying that what they charge is set by what the market is willing to pay for their skills and has no direct relation to how long they spent in college, how much they spent on their qualification or how many bells and whistles they have. For example  GP “A” may only have the basic qualifications necessary to open a practice while GP “B” may have extra qualifications hanging out of their ying-yang. If more people like GP “A” they can charge more because the market will stand higher prices for their services.



Up until recently there were scales of fees for architects - these have been removed as anti-competitive.
We're all on this "competition is good for us" train, heading ever onwards in our race to the bottom.
It won't last, I suspect.
But as to your point even as a professional I have problems with some of the fees charged by other professionals, especially when they perform substandard work or give a poor service.
I agree that in such cases the market will be heard.
My point is that there is a point below which professionals will not sell their services and that its no determined by the market per se - the market is the point at which equilibrium is reached between buyers of services and suppliers of services.
Don't believe me?
Despite hundreds of poorly paid barristers out there how many people take legal action?
These are basic rights we're talking about - but only a small subset pay the fees of the best.
When you go to court only the best will do, but the best cost a lot.



> Large (Law) firms offer a depth and breadth of skills that smaller offices do not. For large companies/ large cases economies of scale justify much larger spends for these skills, but still it’s  the market deciding the price that can be charged.



This is a typical myth-understanding based on a dismissal of the small firms ability to attain a level of quality of work.
Larger firms can take on more work.
Larger firms can pay people to specialise.
It still comes down to an individual professional making the call.



> I suggest that the average plumber knows more about that than the average socicitor.



That makes no sense.
I sit down with a solicitor, I'm on the clock.
I call a plumber out and there's a call out fee.
Both are in the phone book and get known by word of mouth.



> What on earth are you talking about? I am saying that the market should set the price, you are not; I am arguing for a capitalist model, you are not.



I am pointing out that the capitalist model has limitations.
Too much competition pulls the bottom out of the market and makes it unprofitable to provide the service.
In all your arguments you seem to ignore profit.
But profit and the lure of it it what drives capital markets.



> What’s your solution, should the state pay professionals a subsidy if the market will not stand the fees they wish to charge in order to have the lifestyle their years of study justify?



I don't see a problem.
If a civilization cannot support a competent professional class it doesn't deserve them.



> I know they are, my sister is a solicitor. I am simply pointing out that the buyer (the market) sets the rate, not the seller.



Nonsense - the interplay between supply and demand sets the rate.
Have you never seen a supply curve?
That's the price/quantity at which the professional will supply his/her services.
The demand curve is what the client is willing to pay.
Where these curves meet there is a market.

If the client offers too little there is no market.
The professional cannot exist supplying services unprofitably.
Ergo, the professional will be driven out of the market at those prices.



> You have my sympathies, genuinely (for what little they are worth) but that’s the nature of things.



If I can persuade someone to kick the Banks in the butt and get them lending again, that's as much help as I'll need, but thanks for the sentiment.


----------



## Purple

onq said:


> I'm saying that there is a price below which people will not sell their skills after so many years of study and low pay.


 I agree. You seem to presume that when I talk of the market  I am only talking about the demand side. Input costs and returns relative to other jobs/professions are also factors which set the market price but it’s still demand led; if nobody want to buy your services they have no value.





onq said:


> People tend to divide into numerate and non-numerate.
> I've yet to meet a former accountant working as a hair stylist.
> I've never met a former beautician working in a science laboratory.
> Both numerate and non-numerate people may be intelligent, articulate and learn quickly, but they will probably never cross their respective Rubicons.


 I know a chemical engineer who started out as a painter decorator and only went back to college after he was married. He now has his PhD. I als know a medical doctor who runs a sandwich shop.




onq said:


> No, its not all determined by what the market will pay - its a balance between what the market will pay and what the seller must make to stay in business, compounded by the back that he/she is making up for over a decade of low pay.


 If demand is below the input costs then suppliers will leave the market (the market will disappear) but price is still led by demand. Competition within the supply side of the market determines the selling price. If there is over-supply then the price will drop to a floor just above the combined input costs plus the minimum level above which suppliers will stay in the market.





onq said:


> Now you're thinking correctly - know any shop owners with a sign saying "charitable institution" over the door? Didn't think so.


 You have completely missed the point.





onq said:


> I was drawing a distinction between a professional and a non-professional. Tradesmen are a different kettle of fish again.


 There is no difference what so ever between professionals, non-professionals and trades people. They are all just people seeking to sell their skills.





onq said:


> We're all on this "competition is good for us" train, heading ever onwards in our race to the bottom.


 “Race to the bottom” is a meaningless and dangerous phrase used by vested interests and those who seek to perpetuate social injustice in order to prevent the have-nots from getting equality. 



onq said:


> My point is that there is a point below which professionals will not sell their services and that its no determined by the market per se - the market is the point at which equilibrium is reached between buyers of services and suppliers of services.


 This is the case for anyone selling their services or products. So-called “professions” are irrelevant in this context.




onq said:


> This is a typical myth-understanding based on a dismissal of the small firms ability to attain a level of quality of work.
> Larger firms can take on more work.
> Larger firms can pay people to specialise.
> It still comes down to an individual professional making the call.


Off topic but I’ve seen the incompetence of large firms answering very basic points first hand. My point is that a suburban lawyer is far less likely to know much about say. Chinese patent law. For that I’d go to a specialist firm. If I was a large company and wanted one law firm to represent me I’d use someone who covered the entire gambit and had pockets deep enough to fight long and complex cases.





onq said:


> That makes no sense.
> I sit down with a solicitor, I'm on the clock.
> I call a plumber out and there's a call out fee.
> Both are in the phone book and get known by word of mouth.


 If a solicitor comes to my house he charges me for getting there and then charges by the hour. If a plumber comes to my house he charges me for getting there and then charges by the hour. Yes, what was I thinking? 







onq said:


> I am pointing out that the capitalist model has limitations.
> Too much competition pulls the bottom out of the market and makes it unprofitable to provide the service.
> In all your arguments you seem to ignore profit.
> But profit and the lure of it it what drives capital markets.


Your first and last line contradict each other. I’ve made the point already that the market is more than the demand side.




onq said:


> If a civilization cannot support a competent professional class it doesn't deserve them.


 That’s a bit to self-important for my liking. We live in a republic; we don’t have professional classes, we have lawyers, doctors, engineers, plumbers etc.





onq said:


> Nonsense - the interplay between supply and demand sets the rate.
> Have you never seen a supply curve?
> That's the price/quantity at which the professional will supply his/her services.
> The demand curve is what the client is willing to pay.
> Where these curves meet there is a market.
> 
> If the client offers too little there is no market.
> The professional cannot exist supplying services unprofitably.
> Ergo, the professional will be driven out of the market at those prices.


 Covered already.


----------



## Purple

According to The Independent the ERSI are telling us that like-for-like jobs in the public sector are 25% better paid (job security etc is not taken into account but pensions are). According to RTE the socialists in unions, in utterances reminiscent of King Knut, have said that they will bring the country to its knees with strikes if the government attempts to level the playing field.


----------



## Welfarite

Purple said:


> According to The Independent the ERSI are telling us that like-for-like jobs in the public sector are 25% better paid.



I don't know about the 'like-for-like' bit. On average, public sector workers tend to be better qualified, with 60 per cent holding some type of third-level qualification compared to 33 per cent of workers in the private sector. Public sector workers also have more work experience, an average of 20 years compared to 17 years for private sector workers. In addition, a higher proportion of public sector workers are in professional and associate professional occupations. All these factors would support public sector workers having higher earnings. Other noteworthy differences between the two sectors include hours worked – private sector workers were found to work longer hours (approximately 40 hours per week compared to 36 hours in the public sector). Furthermore, workers in the private sector were also more likely to undertake supervisory responsibilities. In terms of gender, 64 per cent of public sector workers were female compared to just 34 per cent in the private sector.​


----------



## Purple

from the Indo gives more details on the other factors. The article dates from June this year, it discussed CSO figures.

The major differential is at the lower end of the spectrum, not the top end.


----------



## Shawady

How can the ERSI compare like-for-like jobs but only give an average figure for the difference?
Why do they not give a breakdown for individual sectors?


----------



## Purple

Shawady said:


> How can the ERSI compare like-for-like jobs but only give an average figure for the difference?
> Why do they not give a breakdown for individual sectors?



Ask then and let us know what they say.


----------



## Shawady

Purple said:


> Ask then and let us know what they say.


 
Ah they wouldn't tell me.

But seriously, there must be at least some jobs that are better paid in the private sector. Might be an extreme example, but doctors get paid more in the private industry, isn't that why they do some owrk in public and make it up in the private clinics?
Also, I would find it hard to believe that public sector workers are paid 25% more than private workers in the area of finance or accountancy?


----------



## Cheeus

Shawady said:


> How can the ERSI compare like-for-like jobs but only give an average figure for the difference?
> Why do they not give a breakdown for individual sectors?


 
Exactly. They talk about the education sector being higher paid 'on average'. It's no wonder if the likes of UCD can exceed pay scales to attract top academics, but then administrators have to be employed for about 10 years, have postgrads and generally be managing a few functions and people before they hit 35k.  

Starting salaries for skilled admin workers with postgrads in the universities is about 25k - generally job descriptions inlcude having a language, marketing experience, web experience etc.. You can get 25k in the private sector just by dying your hair, putting on a bit of makeup, filing your nails and sitting on a reception desk. 

They're not comparing like with like at all and relying on averages where at the top end you have university staff with huge salaries, bonuses and expenses - a million miles away from the entry level workers whose 'average' wage isn't much at all.


----------



## Welfarite

I suspect that the media are using the ESRI report (which in fairness does not say that they are comparing like with like) to stir up another Private Sector V Public Sector battle. When you read headlines that infer that the public sector is paid 25% more than the private sector, the inference is that the public secxtor are overpaid. This is not what the ESRI report shows at all, in my view.

What it does show is the disparity between lower paid grades in the public sector and private sector and the lessened disparity in the higher grades. That, to me, is the real message of the report. Public Service unions, over decades, have managed to get lower paid public servants pay hugely increased by linking it to higher paid grades in the Public sector. Unfortunately, there was no such weapon available to private sector unions to do the same for their lowly members' pay!


----------



## becky

Shawady said:


> Ah they wouldn't tell me.
> 
> But seriously, there must be at least some jobs that are better paid in the private sector. Might be an extreme example, but doctors get paid more in the private industry, isn't that why they do some owrk in public and make it up in the private clinics?
> Also, I would find it hard to believe that public sector workers are paid 25% more than private workers in the area of finance or accountancy?


 
Consultants now start on €197k plus call outs.  The private work is extra and I don't see any consultant giving up his/her public contract to work exclusively in the private sector.

In the HSE area I work in there are 8 Grade VIII's in Finance which off the top of my head is circa €70K pa.


----------



## Shawady

Welfarite said:


> I suspect that the media are using the ESRI report (which in fairness does not say that they are comparing like with like) to stir up another Private Sector V Public Sector battle. When you read headlines that infer that the public sector is paid 25% more than the private sector, the inference is that the public secxtor are overpaid. This is not what the ESRI report shows at all, in my view.
> 
> What it does show is the disparity between lower paid grades in the public sector and private sector and the lessened disparity in the higher grades. That, to me, is the real message of the report. Public Service unions, over decades, have managed to get lower paid public servants pay hugely increased by linking it to higher paid grades in the Public sector. Unfortunately, there was no such weapon available to private sector unions to do the same for their lowly members' pay!


 
Fair points Welfarite. The irony is that when pay cuts come, they will be smaller for the lower paid. Look at the pension levy - a 5% cut for someone on 25K compared to an 8% cut for someone at 60K.


----------



## Purple

Welfarite said:


> Unfortunately, there was no such weapon available to private sector unions to do the same for their lowly members' pay!


 Thankfully they didn't or there'd be no jobs left in the country!


----------



## Cheeus

Welfarite said:


> What it does show is the disparity between lower paid grades in the public sector and private sector and the lessened disparity in the higher grades.


 
They need to publish a breakdown of roles and salaries before they make across the board cuts. Is there a document somewhere that details the disparity between lower paid grades in public and private sector in detail?


----------



## annet

Welfarite said:


> I don't know about the 'like-for-like' bit. On average, public sector workers tend to be better qualified, with 60 per cent holding some type of third-level qualification compared to 33 per cent of workers in the private sector. Any empirical evidence to suggest that public sector workers are better qualified or there is a higher percentage that holds third level qualifications.  Having seen what are many public servants in quite responsible positions - I have concluded that anybody can get a degree but obtaining a degree doesnt gaurantee that that person is competent either in professional practice or the application of their learned skills-base.  Can I have this reference is it the ESRI report - too early to go researching?
> 
> Public sector workers also have more work experience, an average of 20 years compared to 17 years for private sector workers. Is the 20 years of work experience confined to the public service and do employees in the private sector gain more in their professional development by virtue that they can move between organisations that have multiple areas of specialisms, expertise and cultures.
> 
> In addition, a higher proportion of public sector workers are in professional and associate professional occupations. All these factors would support public sector workers having higher earnings.  I would agree with this in relation to professional and associated professional occupations be them consultants, regs, sho's, academics, accountants, solicitors etc.... however consultants can operate in public and private - many choose to practice in private only, some consultants are shareholders and directors of major private hospitals, the five large accountancy firms are not owned by the state - although the state contracts them - and as for accountants the same applies - the state uses certain large accountancy firms - applying the appropriate consultancy and professional fees.
> 
> Other noteworthy differences between the two sectors include hours worked – private sector workers were found to work longer hours (approximately 40 hours per week compared to 36 hours in the public sector).  True but public sector workers have family friendly policies and flexible working patterns.
> 
> Furthermore, workers in the private sector were also more likely to undertake supervisory responsibilities.  Wouldnt this come down to the management systems that exist in the public service.... supervisory responsibilities for a consultant in the private sector dont generally arise - as they mostly operate a single practice without the classic multi-disciplinary team support.  This would contrast heavily with their public sector work.  I would have thought that people in management grade in the public service across the various dept's ie, EO, HEO, AO would have some level of supervisory responsibility for programmes, projects and human/social capital.  Obviously at principal officer and secretary general level we are talking about managerial, policy, fiscal and corporate governance which I would have expected would include some supervisory elements!
> 
> In terms of gender, 64 per cent of public sector workers were female compared to just 34 per cent in the private sector.​


 can comment - no knowledge and then there's the time of the night!


In summary, public sector workers need a reality check.... if we adopt a human and social capital approach - workers get what they are worth - in economics - there is supply vs. demand - in an over-supply of workers looking for jobs - wage rates naturally go down - the public service should not be immune from the basics of economics.  From what I can see trade unions are self serving - members need to ask questions are they best representing your interests when you pay your subscription - or are they playing the game of social partnership - which they are still members of!  In sociology and social policy - I learned that government is a handmaiden to industry - likewise - are unions handmaidens to govt?


----------



## ashlinn09

Protocol said:


> I forgot:
> 
> auditors fees
> accountants fees



I have to agree with the above inclusion of the accountant salary being too much -- my friend just had to pay for one to get everything in order, and the bill was a bit high.  There are some great ideas in these latest posts; really enjoy following this one....

Ashley


----------



## con2580

i have worked for a large chain pharmacy for five years, i get paid really badly €9.08 an hour for the amount of time i have worked there. is there anything i can do about this.If i question it in work i am told there is plenty of people to fill my job any suggestions what of what i could do to improve this ?


----------



## Purple

Increase your skill level or get another job. 
Your employer is paying you the market rate for your skills so why should they pay you more?


----------



## goingforgold

People I agree with Beanpole and others, we really have to get real in this country in regard to social welfare. My brother and father are currently on welfare. My father took voluntary redundancy two months ago. Basically he had 3 years to retirement and the company paid him more than what he would have earned to go now! On top of this he was then entitled to draw his stamps for 12 months at 204.30 per week. My father owns a lot of property and land and has substantial savings. My brother is a recent graduate and lives at home. He was means tested for welfare and because my father is now technically unemployed, my brother gets 204.30 per week also. Only regular income was taken into account when my parents income was assessed. The value of land, property, savings was not taken into account for my brothers assessment. 

Now my brother has disposable income of 204 euro per week and no expenses. There is no incentive for him to work. This is my family and even I am complaining. It's a complete joke. The whole thing needs to be revolutionised!


----------



## csirl

You often here in the media about public servants being paid X% more than public servants in UK, Germany etc. and how our public servants should have their pay reduced to UK/Germany levels.

People forget that the entire economy is like this. Compare private sector pay in Ireland with private sector pay in UK, Germany etc. and you'll get similar percentage differences. Wages in Ireland are higher than most other countries, doesnt matter what sector.


----------



## csirl

Protocol said:


> I don't think Irish *industrial workers* on 25k-40k are overpaid.
> 
> The following are overpaid:
> 
> landlords (commercial rents way too high)
> bank executives
> most other executives
> barristers
> solicitors (even though many are unemployed)
> medical consultants
> dentists
> judges
> teachers + guards (well more like underworked in terms of days)


 
An industrial worker in the UK would consider themselves very lucky if they earned 12-15k per annum. Are Irish industrial workers overpaid by UK standards?


----------



## Purple

csirl said:


> An industrial worker in the UK would consider themselves very lucky if they earned 12-15k per annum. Are Irish industrial workers overpaid by UK standards?


 I thought the average private sector wage in the UK was around £23'400. The average public sector wage there is very slightly lower. However private sector wages in the UK are falling at the fastest rate since records began whereas public sector wages there are increasing.


----------



## sunrock

Just want to comment onthe wages of a quality control worker in the pharma  industry...the other thread closed and redirected to this thread....
Anyway the OP was wondering why someone getting 35k here is only getting 20£ inthe U.K.
Posters were saying it was because of the high costs here or the fact that our graduates are more educated etc etc
Well maybe its something to do with the employers...most are multinational companies who benefit from our low corporate tax rate....because of this huge tax savings these companies can afford to pay bigger wages.You can be sure that all the conditions are discussed with the IDA etc when these companies are setting up here.There is no point in rocking the boat here as reduced wages will only go into the pockets of shareholders in the U.S. and switzerland.


----------



## mainasia

onq said:


> I wasn't drawing a distinction between architects and other professions.
> 
> An architects degree takes five years in Ireland and it is strongly recommended you take a year off, usually after 3rd year, to an initial gain experience of how and office is run and the duties you might face.
> 
> Some people decide to do other courses after they see just how "glamorous" the life is - LOL!
> 
> When I was qualified it was expected that you worked in an practice and learnt the ropes from senior architects for 2 years and then do a Part III exam or seven years after which you were deemed to have your part III's.
> 
> So that's a minimum of between 8 and 13 years before you could call yourself a competent architect - in theory.
> 
> ONQ.



I think the same could be said about pretty much all working professionals, whether they are scientists, engineers, sales managers or trademen. The last couple of years were a weird blip on the normal state of affairs, in a competitive marketplace it takes years to get any type of real earning power. 
Once architects, solicitors, doctors etc. could claim they spent a relatively long time in education and that's why they charged high fees. But with so many people going on to do master's and post grad education these days that argument just doesn't hold water.

Professionals in certain areas are still pretty much guaranteed a high income such as the medical profession or teachers even due to their cosy arrangements with the state (once they get into the club).

There is a strong case for high pay in certain professions to help prevent corruption and fraud but it certainly should not be out of whack with what the state and individuals can afford to pay for their services. Many 'professionals' wouldn't have the skills to survive in a commercial marketplace e.g. some doctors who don't have very good social skills but high IQs and good at exam taking (of course there are many great doctors out there too...just giving an example).


----------



## Purple

mainasia said:


> I think the same could be said about pretty much all working professionals, whether they are scientists, engineers, sales managers or trademen. The last couple of years were a weird blip on the normal state of affairs, in a competitive marketplace it takes years to get any type of real earning power.
> Once architects, solicitors, doctors etc. could claim they spent a relatively long time in education and that's why they charged high fees. But with so many people going on to do master's and post grad education these days that argument just doesn't hold water.
> 
> Professionals in certain areas are still pretty much guaranteed a high income such as the medical profession or teachers even due to their cosy arrangements with the state (once they get into the club).
> 
> There is a strong case for high pay in certain professions to help prevent corruption and fraud but it certainly should not be out of whack with what the state and individuals can afford to pay for their services. Many 'professionals' wouldn't have the skills to survive in a commercial marketplace e.g. some doctors who don't have very good social skills but high IQs and good at exam taking (of course there are many great doctors out there too...just giving an example).



Good post, I agree 100%


----------



## Complainer

mainasia said:


> There is a strong case for high pay in certain professions to help prevent corruption and fraud


So it is a case of pay us loads or we'll defraud you?


----------

