# average salaries



## D (1 Apr 2003)

I've been trying to search AAM for a discussion on average salaries in ireland but can't find it.

Apologies to bring this one up again - can anyone point me to the link please?


----------



## Contango10 (1 Apr 2003)

Sorry I can't find the link for you.

But here is some September 2002 data from the CSO.  Average weekly earnings in various sectors.

Industry                      509.19
Distribution and Business services  559.51
Financial sector            663.92
Construction                668.21

Public sector                700.86

Ah, the poor underpaid public sector.

Contango10


----------



## N0elC (2 Apr 2003)

> Ah, the poor underpaid public sector.



Bless 'em !! 

This pay disparity will increase now as well once the latest national pay agreements, and a bit of "Benchmarking" filter through. 

Will we never ask for value and accountability from our public servants in this country ?


----------



## Rodders (2 Apr 2003)

*Average salary*

As a former (well on career break actually) member of the public sector, I think the previous emails are a little unfair.  It should be pointed out that the average public sector salary includes overtime for the prison service and gardai, which as they say is quite considerable and does bring up the average. 

While Adminstrative Civil Servants such (as yours truly used to be) do ok ish around 660-670? tihs is counterbalanced by very low wages in other areas such as General Operatives etc.

Just saying as all,

Rodders.

PS Don't even get me started on benchmarking!!!


----------



## endowed (2 Apr 2003)

Hi D (hi),  

*can anyone point me to the link please?* 

I'm not sure whether this is what you are thinking of but _ClubMan_ has a useful link to the Department of Finance Monthly Economic Bulletin contained within ?


----------



## Ben (2 Apr 2003)

are the figures quoted above net per week? ie. 700 after tax for a publin servant?


----------



## Contango10 (2 Apr 2003)

Rodders,

yes, you are right, the massive overtime in the Gardai and the Prison Service do inflate the figures, so I will also soon post up the figures for esch sector within the public sector.

Ben,

when comparing wages, I believe it is the norm to always quote gross wages, as income taxes depend on the individual's situation: married, single, rent or mortgage, health insurance, pension, etc., etc.

Contango10


----------



## Contango10 (2 Apr 2003)

*Public sector salaries*

Sep 2002, average weekly earnings

CIVIL SERVICE                   641
Prison officers                   1055
Admin civil servants             614
Industrial civil servants         482

DEFENCE              582
GARDA                 926
EDUCATION          728
REGIONAL BODIES  573
SEMI-STATES       759


----------



## ClubMan (2 Apr 2003)

*Sorry I can't find the link for you.

But here is some September 2002 data from the CSO. Average weekly earnings in various sectors.*

Are the following CSO links of any use?

- [broken link removed]

- [broken link removed]


----------



## rainyday (2 Apr 2003)

Just wondering if the wages for the Garda's 2nd job as landlord/painter/builder are included in the figures quoted


----------



## ClubMan (2 Apr 2003)

That's a bit of a cheap shot (no pun intended) in my opinion.


----------



## Rodders (2 Apr 2003)

*Fw. Average salaries.*

Hi folks,

Thanks for accepting the vargaries of the data....!

This is slightly off point but interesting none the less - apparently the Civil Service commission were inundated with requests to apply for the latest round of Executive Officer/Administrative Officer posts.  It seems that nearly 5,000 people applied for the Admin Officer post (which is a graduate position of which there MIGHT be up to 40-50 posts) alone.  This reminds me of the good old days in the late 80s early 90's when 10,000-12,000 would apply for 20-30 posts!!!

Funny considering that two/three years the public sector was being poo-pooed by all and sundry - by that I mean entrants into the job market.  Dare I say that this sector has become fashionable again?

Hmmmm...... maybe I should go back after all!! :rolleyes 


Regards,

Rodders.


----------



## Sandy Small (2 Apr 2003)

*Civil disservice . .*

No wonder they were inundated with applications. 

Where else could you find a low stress, well paid job, with full job security, and no need to worry about how well you are serving your customer or employer (the Irish people) ?

Where else would you find such a generous final salary pension scheme paid, underwritten by the Irish taxpayer ? 

Where else would you find an employer who will give you a guaranteed payrise, irrespective of the state of the economy, or of your own individual ability ?

Where else would you find an employer who would fly you around the world business class for "conferences", and pay you a tax free away from home allowance of hundreds of euro for each night away ?

How can I get an application form ?


----------



## civil minded (3 Apr 2003)

*competition*

Hi sandy small

Make your application, but there is no guarantee you'll get the job. There's lots of competition - 5000 applicants for 40 possible jobs! They have achieved the goal to attract high calibre people. 

They will only select the brightest and the best.


----------



## Rodders (3 Apr 2003)

Hi Sandy,

I wouldn't quite agree with you on the job description for the Civil Service.....It can get a bit stressful at times actually! :rupert 

While the pension rights are pretty sweet admittedly, you can make the job your own and get a good career out of it. Also, as an organisation is deals with employees in a humane light.  I doubt our private sector friends could claim that to be the case  

Anyway, the only really down side can be dealing with Ministers!!! >: 

in any event, you should apply to the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission, Lower Grand Canal Street Dublin 2.

best of luck,

Rodders


----------



## bubbles (3 Apr 2003)

*humane face of public service*

I don't want to add sour grapes, but if the private sector gave its employees some of the benefits enjoyed in the civil service, a lot of companies would not turn a profit.

This particularly applies to small, family-run businesses who have to comply with legislation designed for bigger companies (in my opinion, anwyay).

For example, how could a small company give employees sabbaticals for up to five years to try their hand at a different job, or self-employment, and guarantee the employees their jobs when the come back?

How could the private sector afford to finance computers for employees by subsidising them to the tune of 50 per cent of the price of the equipment?

How could small  businesses afford to pay for taxis for employees because they leave the office at 7pm instead of 5.30  pm?

How could the private sector fund the index-linked pensions enjoyed by the public sector?

I think it's easier to have a humane face when you are not paying the bill ultimately. For most indigenous businesses, which employ on average less than five people, economics have to be taken into account when giving the perks and benefits to employees, or additional leave.

regards
Bubbles


----------



## tedd (3 Apr 2003)

*Re: public vs private sector*

I always find these debates about public vs private sector employees a bit futile. Clearly there are pros and cons to each sector. If you think the pros of one outweigh the pros of the other, then think about changing your job.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (3 Apr 2003)

*?*

What are the pros to working in the private sector?


----------



## N0elC (3 Apr 2003)

*Re: ?*

Hi tedd,

You say:



> I always find these debates about public vs private sector employees a bit futile



Au contraire !! We need to have a full and open debate in this country about the value we get for our taxes, which is something that we have not done to date.

Why should the hard pressed private sector worker or small businessman continue to should the financial generous terms and conditions for public sector waste? Just look at all the extra money that has been pumped into Health over the past five years, where has it gone other than into higher salaries and admin posts ? The patients see little benefit from this.

As taxpayers, we deserve better.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Apr 2003)

*Re: ?*

*Au contraire !! We need to have a full and open debate in this country about the value we get for our taxes, which is something that we have not done to date.

...

As taxpayers, we deserve better.*

Sounds like you've dispensed with the need for any debate and have already made your mind up!


----------



## N0elC (3 Apr 2003)

*Re: ?*



> Sounds like you've dispensed with the need for any debate and have already made your mind up!



This is a debating forum ClubMan, if your views differ from the above, please post something coherent, rather than making smart remarks.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (3 Apr 2003)

*.*

If the civil service is enjoying such high wages, it pushes inflation up. How can small Irish companies possibly survive when they have to pay their staff such extravagant wages?

Is it any surprise that Ireland is so expensive when the Gardai (for example) are getting paid so much? The house prices make sense now.


----------



## Slim (4 Apr 2003)

Y'all

Dont forget that most organisations are pyramidical in shape, i.e. lots of low paid at the bottom and the fatter cats at the top. An exception is the prison service and gardai. If gov. were committed to a proper servicce they would employ more POs and Cops and bring the average down.

In Health, which someone mentioned, highest salaries earned by medical consultants. Increase in admin/management posts followed a long period of a freeze on new posts, leading to demotivated workforce and absence of management skills.

Gardai and nurses can no longer afford to buy in Dublin. Low interest rates has pushed up demand etc...

advantages of private sector.. pensions up to 66% of final salary, share options, Company cars, bonuses, overtime...

Most Public servants just trying to do a good job despite moronic edicts of government...

Slim


----------



## Rodders (4 Apr 2003)

Hi folks,

Firstly thanks to Slim for making a couple of excellent points in defence of the Public Serivce.  Some of the other contributors seem to have funny ideas about the Service generally.

Ok, I'm biased having spent 10+ years in various Departments, but my experience of the Public Serivce has been a good one on average - I'd never say it's perfect but having worked in both sectors, I'd have to tell you all that it runs more efficiently than the much vaunted private sector!

As for some of the comments I've seen on this thread, I must say I'm a little suprised and disappointed at some contributors who really should know better - oh well the certainty of stupidity and all that. :mad 

For the records all public servant ares NOT overpaid underworked wander around the country/abroad on expenses etc.

Incidentally who do you think got all that EU money or get good deals considering our size?

Note if somebody says the policiticans, I think I'll throw up!!!!


Who brings in substantial funds through the provision of consultancy services to other countries?


Just saying there's another side to the equation as all!

Regards,

Rodders.


----------



## Timbo (4 Apr 2003)

*Cost of the service*



> the certainty of stupidity



I find that its a sure sign that you've lost the logical, intellectual, and moral argument when you have to stoop to labelling those with opposing views as dullards.

:rolleyes


----------



## Rodders (4 Apr 2003)

Hi Timbo,

I'm sorry you feel like that - To be honest with you I have some experience of the issue - it's quite obvious from previous emails that others do not.  That's all.

And to be be frank with you some of the comments have been quite sweeping and wrong and there has been no thought into what the truth actually so yes my comment is correct!

If you feel put out by that fine, but at least lets have a discussion rather than putting up what is really the equivalent of verbal bull****!

Regards,


Rodders.


----------



## Slim (4 Apr 2003)

Steady ladies...put away the handbags!

Some of the resentment which is held about public servants is the fact that, in the main, jobs are permanent and pensionable. During the time of the Celtic Tiger when it seemed that every twat with a diploma in IT was setting up an Internet Consultancy or floating on Nasdaq etc, many public servants watched helplessly as house prices soared and Public floatations made wealthy people(on paper anyway) of phone installers who had not been able to get a LeavingCert etc. Share options and 66% retirement pensions were also jealously regarded...now I'm boring myself!

Anyway, there are plusses and minuses to every career...

Slim


----------



## Rodders (5 Apr 2003)

Hi Slim,

Sound advice as always..... My handbag has been firmly put away!!

Where else could I keep all my money anyway :rollin 

And on to the next big item....!!

All the best,

Rodders

PS I certainly don't mean to offend anyone in any of my posts, but I will never let anything go unchallenged!!


----------



## Shanks1 (8 Apr 2003)

Of course the Internet Consultancy firms those twats set up are now history and those share options are worthless!!


----------



## CM (8 Apr 2003)

*twats*

. . . .meanwhile the lads in the civil service still continue to get their above inflation pay rises, generous final salary pensions, never take a risk (like those entrepreneurs you call "twats" do), and don't break into a sweat too often.

Somethings never change . . .

Rip off Ireland, how are ya ?


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (9 Apr 2003)

*Re: twats*

I'd love to know what proportion of posters to this board are in the civil service. What would also interest me is what everyone's average salary is. Is there a way of finding this out anonymously? - doesn't ezboard have a polls feature?


----------



## rainyday (9 Apr 2003)

*Salaries*

Hi AP - Why don't you setup a poll anywhere on the web & post a link to it?


----------



## tedd (10 Apr 2003)

*Re: twats*



> I'd love to know what proportion of posters to this board are in the civil service. What would also interest me is what everyone's average salary is.



Why? 

tedd


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (10 Apr 2003)

*.*

tedd - so I can compare my income to others. 

I'd also like to see if views expressed on this site are from mainly public or private sector employees.


Rainyday - I can get a link to a poll, but unfortunately the voters have to register on the site first. If I can get a link where people don't have to register, I'll post it.


----------



## rainyday (10 Apr 2003)

*Re: .*

Hi AP - Check out Tripod/Lycos's Poll Gear


----------



## tedd (11 Apr 2003)

*Re: polls*



> I'd also like to see if views expressed on this site are from mainly public or private sector employees



Surely each view expressed belongs to an individual and therefore is not influenced by whether the majority of other contributors are from the private or public sector?

A prolific contributor (and AAM is fortunate to have many!) could have an influence out of proportion with the representation of their sector.

Finally, I disagree with the assumption that the sector an individual works in is an independent determinant of their opinion. 

regards
tedd


----------



## ciaranfx (31 Jul 2003)

*average saleris*

_Incidentally who do you think got all that EU money or get good deals considering our size?_


There is little point to that money if it ends up being spent on implimenting the benchmarking agreement.


_I'm sorry you feel like that - To be honest with you I have some experience of the issue - it's quite obvious from previous emails that others do not. That's all._

I think we all have experience when it comes to dealing with inept civil servants


----------



## Curvy (31 Jul 2003)

*Bull Island*

As I parked my Rolls Royce this morning I thought to myself, "How can I screw the state for even more money this morning. Of course, today was payday so I had to wheel my barrow down the office to collect my salary - in cash, obviously, to facilitate moving it off shore quietly....

I may as well be posting the above instead of making any meaningful contribution to this thread, or indeed to this site of late as it had turned into a public servant bashing shop. Some of the points made above are unbelievably stupid. The people posting them cannot have an inkling of what its like to working the public service Check out the bench marking debate to see my posts on the subject, I'm not going to repeat myself, especially for the ill informed.

The basis of a lot of these points seems to be a kind of archaic begrudgery, the likes of which I have not seen since I grew up in the west of Ireland. Instead of taking responsibility for their own future, financial and otherwise, people ore pointing at one group and blaming them for the country's woes. Sandy Small in particular seems to think the public service is a bit of a holiday camp staffed by underworked bloated fools who don't care about their jobs and don't need to. This is utter nonsense.

The bottom line is this. Public and private sector companies exist for different reasons. They have different goals and objectives and need to have a different philosophy. Its daft to compare them as equals because they are not and never can be.

If you want to make comparisons on the quality and work standards within the public service it should be done by comparing different public sectors to each other and to public sectors in other EU countries.

If you want to compare public sector salaries to private ones then that is a different debate, and the question should surely be why private sector companies are underpaying their staff, not why public sectors are overpaying. Think I'm wrong? Then ask you self why manufacturing companies are leaving in droves to set up in the Philippines Indonesia and China because they find Irish wage costs too high. Their corporate philosophy, not their profit margin, is what determines this, but that's a whole different (and much more unsettling) debate.

Sorry about the long post, but it had to be said.

Curvy


----------



## Batty (31 Jul 2003)

*Bull Island*

Back to work curvy. My tax euros do not go to pay for the time you spend dossing on the computer. Then again, you are more than likely on more holidays.


----------



## Summer (31 Jul 2003)

*P v P*



> If you want to compare public sector salaries to private ones then that is a different debate, and the question should surely be why private sector companies are underpaying their staff, not why public sectors are overpaying. Think I'm wrong? Then ask you self why manufacturing companies are leaving in droves to set up in the Philippines Indonesia and China because they find Irish wage costs too high. Their corporate philosophy, not their profit margin, is what determines this, but that's a whole different (and much more unsettling) debate.



Does this mean that the Public Sector is overpaid by private industry's standards?


----------



## Curvy (31 Jul 2003)

*PVP*

Private sector standards on Public sector pay? Is there any such thing? None of the private companies I've worked for in the past had them.


----------



## darag (31 Jul 2003)

*Re: PVP*



> and the question should surely be why private sector companies
> are underpaying their staff, not why public sectors are
> overpaying.


Jeezus H. C. this is fabulous.  Curvey, the answer to this
question is that the private sector is largely governed by
basic and simple economic laws which mean that workers are
largely paid in accordance to their value.  If they are paid
more than this, then the companies collapse causing general
hardship for all involved.  Does this sound cruel and unfair?
No, that's just the way the grown up adult world works.  
Unfortunately the public sector is largely shielded from 
such realities because of the nature of public financing.

Maybe the entire private sector should threaten to strike
unless there is an immediate 30% pay rise for everyone?  In
theory this could be done but immediately companies would fold
or move, unemployment would skyrocket, public finances would
collapse and we'd be back to the eighties.  This extortionate
strategy has worked for the public sector because you are
effectively being supported by the incomes of those in the
private sector.  Don't be surprised when private sector
workers complain when the burden gets heavier.  It's 
especially galling for the private sector to shoulder this 
increasing burden while their finacial situation and job
security worsens by the day.


----------



## Unknown</username>
		<dateline>1178234940</datelin (1 Aug 2003)

*Unknown</title>
		<pagetext>(This post is missing and can not be restored)</pagetext>
	</post>
	<post>
		<thread>N</thread>
		<threadtitle>average salaries</threadtitle>
		<threadviews>121</threadviews>
		<threadsticky>0</threadsticky>
		<poll></poll*

(This post is missing and can not be restored)</pagetext>
	</post>
	<post>
		<thread>N</thread>
		<threadtitle>average salaries</threadtitle>
		<threadviews>121</threadviews>
		<threadsticky>0</threadsticky>
		<poll></poll>
		<username>MOB</username>
		<dateline>1059695040</dateline>
		<title>&quot;we all pay tax&quot;</title>
		<pagetext>I donlt want to come across as public sector bashing but as regards the comment:

"We all pay tax, Darag, I pay as much as anyone else. Tax funds the country's administrations and we all pay it. "   

I have two observations:

1.  Unless the rules have changed, I thought civil servants paid lower PRSI.

2.  Yes we all pay tax, but the public sector gets to continue to lean on the tax payer after retirement in a wholly disproportionate way.   The argument that public service workers accept lower average wages for job security and better pensions has been shown to be palpably false.  So is there any trade-off they make in exchange for the superb pensions?  if there is, I can't see it.   And it's not an issue where you can say that everybody should have a pension like those we give civil servants.  The fact is, no private sector body could hope to underwrite the risk of such a liability - only the state, hobbled by political imperatives- is stupid enough to try.

As the demographics of this country change, the public sector pension bill is going to become a serious headache.   There is in my view no moral justification for making tomorrow's taxpayers support today's public sector workers.  But, unfortunately, there is no real alternative.

And it's no use saying that we should give out to the policiticans:  we all know that they haven't got the political courage to tackle this.  Does that make it right, or in any way morally defensible for the public sector unions to mortgage our children's future prosperity?  I don't think so.


----------



## tedd (1 Aug 2003)

*Re: "we all pay tax"*



> morally defensible



Getting onto seriously dodgy ground here! A tit-for-tat on the morally defensible acts of the public vs the private sectors could be interesting!!

tedd


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (1 Aug 2003)

*.*

*My own award is less than 2.5 percent*

Lucky you! - out here, in the real world, we are struggling to make sure our 'reward' isn't slashed by 20%! (this is no exaggeration)

* Anyone out there work for AIB? *

Come on now! - the AIB might as well be a public sector company.

*I get paid what I'm worth and deliver a fine service in return. *

Indeed. Out here, we get paid as little as possible! (and deliver a fine service - or get the boot)


----------



## Curvy (1 Aug 2003)

*PVP*

What point are you trying to make? Should I get paid less to make you feel better or something? What would that solve, apart from the incessant whinging?


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (1 Aug 2003)

*.*

[/b]What point are you trying to make? Should I get paid less to make you feel better or something? *

Yes, not just to make me feel better though.

I would go further and say for true benchmarking, if private sector jobs go, so too should public sector ones.


What would that solve, apart from the incessant whing*

It would reduce the tax burden, and drastically reduce inflation.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (1 Aug 2003)

*?*

(Why can't I edit my posts? - I'm sure I used to be able to before.)


----------



## Curvy (1 Aug 2003)

*PVP*

*****************************************
I would go further and say for true benchmarking, if private sector jobs go, so too should public sector ones.
*****************************************

Fine we'll start laying off nurses and firemen. Any more brilliant ideas?

******************************************
It would reduce the tax burden, and drastically reduce inflation. 
*****************************************

No it wouldn't.


----------



## Dowee (2 Aug 2003)

*Re: PVP*



> Fine we'll start laying off nurses and firemen. Any more brilliant ideas?



No, they are actually needed. We could get rid of the useless pen pushers.


----------



## Curvy (3 Aug 2003)

*PVP*

Wow! I see now how out of my depth am on this debate. The remarkable and insightful wit of Dowee's post has made me see the light. I'm sorry for wasting all of your time.

Please direct any more queries to Dowee since he seems to have a knowledge of the public service that requires no qualified arguments in order to make point. Useless pen pushers. How did I not notice? And what a brilliant piece of creativity on Dowees part to coin that phrase.

I am humbled. Its been fun, but now I'm going back to the private sector to suffer with the rest of you non-useless pen pusher types. Apologies again, particularly to Dowee who flexed his giant intellect and rubbished all the valid points on both sides of the argument with a one line generic statement . How lucky we are to have him. 

Curvy out.


----------



## Curvyless (3 Aug 2003)

*PVP*

Sarcasm is best kept short.  Otherwise people are tired of YOUR comments before they get to the end of your post.


----------



## Dowee (3 Aug 2003)

*Re: PVP*

Curvy, I deliberately didn't address any of the issues mentioned above and was not trying to make any statement on them I was merely addressing your ridiculous comment with an equally ridiculous one. Hence the reason I put your comment in quotes before mine. Sorry the irony was lost on you. Maybe you need to benchmark the public sector's grasp of irony with the private sector's    . Again a joke (probably not a funny one), lighten up!!!


----------



## Sue Ellen (4 Aug 2003)

*Benchmarking folly*

I think MOB put his finger on it when he said:



> The argument that public service workers accept lower average wages for job security and better pensions has been shown to be palpably false. So is there any trade-off they make in exchange for the superb pensions? if there is, I can't see it.



Our multi-seat STV PR system means that no government will ever have the neck to stand up to the public sector unions, or the social welfare spongers, and tell them to get their snout out of the trough.


----------



## rainyday (4 Aug 2003)

*Re: Benchmarking folly*



> or the social welfare spongers



Hi Sueellen - While I share some of the sentiment of your last post, I understand that there have been substantial clampdowns on social welfare fraud in the last 5 years approx. Many of those who were living on the dole at that time have now been 'forced' out to work.


----------



## XXXAnother PersonXXX (5 Aug 2003)

*.*

Rainyday, I'd love to see a link to this. (To see how many people have been caught & what punishments were given out etc.)


----------



## rainyday (5 Aug 2003)

*Fraud*

Hi AP - I don't have any links/hard data on this. I was speaking in terms of anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Almost 30 (5 Aug 2003)

*Re MOB's comment*

Just in connection with MOB's comment about Civil Servants paying a lower rate of PRSI.  The rules did change on this approx 8 years ago and all new entrants now pay PRSI at the standard rates.  Those who joined previously continue to pay PRSI at the lower rates and continue to make all the benefits associated with paying at the higher rate unavailable to themselves.


----------



## CM (5 Aug 2003)

*..*



> Those who joined previously continue to pay PRSI at the lower rates and continue to make all the benefits associated with paying at the higher rate unavailable to themselves.



I think most people would opt to pay 5 or 6% lower taxes for the meagre benefits that you get for PRSI payments. 

No need for civil servants to congratulate themselves because some of them now pay the same taxes as us in the private sector.

Is mise le meas

CM


----------

