# Public Sector Wages; what should they be benchmarked against?



## Purple (3 Dec 2009)

Context (with apologies for being long winded; I don’t have the time to write a short post):

There are a few posters here who used to work in large multinational and now work in the public sector. I am sure that the skills they brought from their former employers are very useful in their new roles and, from the quality of their posts here, I am sure that they are intelligent and capable people. The question I have concerns the tendency that have to compare their current pay and more specifically their terms and conditions  to what they enjoyed while employed by large multinationals. 

Given that this is a high cost economy large MNC’s base high value add operations here, basically we are near the top of the value chain. Therefore is it reasonable to deduce that a considerable amount of value has been added to whatever product or service (or most likely a combination of both) that the Irish operation is involved in by an operation or operations in a lower cost economy. 

So wages in the Irish operation are sustained not only by the value added/created here but also by what has been added elsewhere. That position in the value chain allows high wages to be paid. The same is not the case with the public sector where wages are paid using the taxes generated in the domestic economic.

So the question; Should public sector wages and terms and conditions be closer aligned to what is enjoyed in the SME and general domestic economy since that is where the majority of the taxes that fund them are derived from?


----------



## colm5 (3 Dec 2009)

Like most of our European partners, it should be less, due to the pension and job security. I canot see any reason why it should be aglined or greater.

If they do not have these benefits, it should be closely aglined to private sector.


----------



## csirl (3 Dec 2009)

Just thinking off the top of my head.

Comparisons with other countries public services dont work. Private sector workers here earn higher wages to people doing identical jobs, sometimes in the same company, overseas. 

You could try comparing them with other large administrative organisations such as banks and insurance companies. The organisation size and type of work done is comparable.

You would also need some element of supply and demand in a comparison. When I worked in a Government Dept 10 years ago, they couldnt hold onto staff. People were walking every day. Some people didnt even bother to give notice - just didnt show up one day because someone offered them a higher paid job elsewhere. I'm aware of one very important area in the civil service which got absolutely plundered over a 3-4 year period between c.1999 and 2003. I've noticed that in the 2-3 years afterwards, this area made a lot of monumental mistakes which cost the taxpayer billions - and even today they have still not recovered. All down to being unable to retain good experienced staff. 

In the same way that people complain now that public sector pay rates are not responding quick enough to the downturn, they also do not respond quick enough to upturns. Public sector organisations are straight jacketed by their payscales. Even benchmarking didnt make any difference in the example I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

In the end of the day it comes down to what rate of pay will attract the correct caliber of employee with the correct education and skills and keep them in the organisation for an appreciable length of time.

One area that could be looked at is the monopoly professionals. The example often quoted is hospital consultants. They are the highest paid in the world by a good margin. Even if you cut their wages significantly, none will leave as they would still be paid more than most and so would not move abroad. There are other cartel like monopolies like this in the public sector (and in the private sector) that need to be smashed. 

Clerical workers - I dont see why the Government needs to keep 10,000s of these on the payrole doing simple administrative tasks such as form processing. These jobs could be tendered privately ensuring that you get value for money.


----------



## haminka1 (3 Dec 2009)

i'd take the ratio between private and public sectors in the EU and apply it on wages over here ...
especially the teachers providing "world-class education" /if i hear this statement again i'll start screaming/ would be surprised, especially if they found out how much teachers in other EU countries have to work for their salaries ...


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2009)

haminka1 said:


> i'd take the ratio between private and public sectors in the EU and apply it on wages over here ...
> especially the teachers providing "world-class education" /if i hear this statement again i'll start screaming/ would be surprised, especially if they found out how much teachers in other EU countries have to work for their salaries ...


 We have the best paid teachers in the OECD. Is that necessary to retain, over a 10-15 year period, the right people for the job?


----------



## Mpsox (3 Dec 2009)

Firstly, salary is only one part of why people stay working for an organisation. Other factors such as the challenge of the role, fair/unfair treatment, training, opportunities of advancement are also a factor. I know people who left the Public Sector out of sheer and utter boredom, not because of salary issues

Secondly, (and I accept that this may not be suitable for all areas) there should be proper performance related pay systems in place. Reward the best performers, benchmarking over recent years did not differentiate between the best and those who turned up, most days, and did the minimum to survice. 

thirdly, call increments what they really are, pay rises


----------



## Caveat (3 Dec 2009)

Mpsox said:


> thirdly, call increments what they really are, pay rises


 
Exactly.  Not often said. Payrises that depend on nothing except showing up for work, at that.


----------



## haminka1 (3 Dec 2009)

Purple said:


> We have the best paid teachers in the OECD. Is that necessary to retain, over a 10-15 year period, the right people for the job?



best paid doesn't mean the best, am i right? ireland surely doesn't top the lists of best educated young people or most young people at the universities in OECD. also, their workload is by far one of the lowest in EU.


----------



## corkgal (3 Dec 2009)

What does it do for industrial relations in the country as a whole if the government is a poor employer who cuts wages, pensions and staff??

I think they should be allied to the market rates for those stills. I don't want monkeys running the country (pay peanuts etc)


----------



## Calico (3 Dec 2009)

I think we should aim to spend whatever the European or OECD average percentage of GDP on our public sector and abolish both permanent contracts and public sector pensions.


----------



## Latrade (3 Dec 2009)

Why do they have to be benchmarked against anything? Look at the confusion and rows with benchmarking to the private sector and in a similar way I don't think we can compare with OECD averages either.

Why can't we set a service level expectation for what we expect and want and then set a fair wage and pay and conditions for that?


----------



## Purple (4 Dec 2009)

corkgal said:


> What does it do for industrial relations in the country as a whole if the government is a poor employer who cuts wages, pensions and staff??


 A poor employer is one that does not run their business in an efficient way thus damaging the medium to long term prospects of their employees. If wages and pensions are being paid that are not economically sustainable then the business is being badly run and so they are bad employers. If staff are not being used efficiently then the business is being badly run and so they are bad employers. If staffing levels are higher than necessary because of structural inefficiencies then the business is being badly run and so they are bad employers.



corkgal said:


> I think they should be allied to the market rates for those skills. I don't want monkeys running the country (pay peanuts etc)


 That’s my question; are the market rates set at what is being paid by large multinationals that conduct most of their business out of the country or should they be set at what is being paid in the SME sector?


----------



## Firefly (4 Dec 2009)

Where possible, why not enforce contract-only (say 3 months) employment. That way market forces would come into play and the government would know based on its tax intake how much it could afford to pay. No pensions bill to worry about either. Uncertified sick leave would not be paid and with everyone on a contract there would be a lot less striking and stories of people dossing as there would be a chance every 3 months to cancel the contracts of such staff.


----------



## shnaek (4 Dec 2009)

Public sector wages should be benchmarked against performance. So if your job is to regulate the banks, for example, then you get a huge salary, golden handshake and massive pension if you manage to do the job as badly as possible. That applies to the department of Health also. And to Fas.


----------



## S.L.F (6 Dec 2009)

haminka1 said:


> i'd take the ratio between private and public sectors in the EU and apply it on wages over here ...
> especially the teachers providing "world-class education" /if i hear this statement again i'll start screaming/ would be surprised, especially if they found out how much teachers in other EU countries have to work for their salaries ...


 
When applying the new scales will the costs of *everything *else come down or just the wages of public servants.

"World Class education" 

(I can hear you screaming right now)

Ireland comes 19th in the world when it comes to education not bad at all for a little country like ours.

We are a credit to our teachers...



haminka1 said:


> best paid doesn't mean the best, am i right? ireland surely doesn't top the lists of best educated young people or most young people at the universities in OECD. also, their workload is by far one of the lowest in EU.


 
Is this a question?



Calico said:


> I think we should aim to spend whatever the European or OECD average percentage of GDP on our public sector and abolish both permanent contracts and public sector pensions.


 
LOL

Are you suggesting that our govt doesn't homour it's agreements.



Firefly said:


> Where possible, why not enforce contract-only (say 3 months) employment. That way market forces would come into play and the government would know based on its tax intake how much it could afford to pay. No pensions bill to worry about either. Uncertified sick leave would not be paid and with everyone on a contract there would be a lot less striking and stories of people dossing as there would be a chance every 3 months to cancel the contracts of such staff.


 
Please give an example of where you think this would work.


----------



## Pique318 (7 Dec 2009)

S.L.F said:


> "World Class education"
> 
> (I can hear you screaming right now)
> 
> ...


But are our teachers a credit to US? Which is more important.

OK so we come 19th. Who comes above us and what do they spend as a percentage of GNP/GDP compared to us?


----------



## Firefly (7 Dec 2009)

S.L.F said:


> Please give an example of where you think this would work.


 
Clerical officers, HSE admin staff


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2009)

What we spend in a particular sector as a proportion of GNP or GDP is not the only issue. What proportion of our expenditure goes on wages is just as important. If we need X amount of teachers and we have Y amount of money to spend on salaries then we have to have an average teaching salary of Y divided by X. If we pay more than that then we won’t have enough teachers or we will have to spend out capital budget for education on salaries. That’s what’s happening at the moment; we have large classes and decrepit buildings because we are using too much of our money to pay salaries.

Two questions should be asked before pay increases are given (in any sector);
1)	Is it necessary to retain and/or attract the right sort of people for the job and
2)	Can we afford to pay it.

In the context of the last 7 years the answer to the both questions is no.


----------



## webbs (7 Dec 2009)

Firefly said:


> Where possible, why not enforce contract-only (say 3 months) employment. That way market forces would come into play and the government would know based on its tax intake how much it could afford to pay. No pensions bill to worry about either. Uncertified sick leave would not be paid and with everyone on a contract there would be a lot less striking and stories of people dossing as there would be a chance every 3 months to cancel the contracts of such staff.



Why not spread this across all sectors of the economy that way we will have a workforce who would be unable to even think about having a disposable income as they would be unsure one month to the next regarding their jobs. 
They would be unwilling to contribute to the economy as they would save any money they could to help in the likely outcome of being laid off, they would also be unable to secure mortgages, loans etc and so would further retreat from contributing to  the economy.


----------



## Latrade (7 Dec 2009)

Purple said:


> What we spend in a particular sector as a proportion of GNP or GDP is not the only issue. What proportion of our expenditure goes on wages is just as important. If we need X amount of teachers and we have Y amount of money to spend on salaries then we have to have an average teaching salary of Y divided by X. If we pay more than that then we won’t have enough teachers or we will have to spend out capital budget for education on salaries. That’s what’s happening at the moment; we have large classes and decrepit buildings because we are using too much of our money to pay salaries.
> 
> Two questions should be asked before pay increases are given (in any sector);
> 1)    Is it necessary to retain and/or attract the right sort of people for the job and
> ...


 
+ 1. 

However, we need a proper analysis to show the proportion of budget spent on wages. All though the OECD report shows an overall higher proportion, it's a big job to go through all departments and see the wages and the breakdown of jobs too.

The education areas is interesting, but it has to be remembered that this would also include colleges, etc and a skewing of wages. However, "on paper" there are enough teachers to meet the demands of the number of pupils in a reasonable ratio. It's just there isn't an appropriate geographical spread of these teachers, there has been a Harneyesque attitude to education running as a buisness (i.e. where there is less demand in rural areas, there is less service) and there are too many teachers not teaching for whatever reason (managerial duties).

However, we have to stop the benchmarking in my opinion. I'm pretty sure both sides can argue it isn't possible and it doesn't work, then or now. To me the PS/CS is different to the private sector. I'm talking traditionally, but the model should be that there wages in the PS/CS are lower than in the private (hmmm to contradict myself doesn't that imply benchmarking of some sort?), but this is countered by better and more secure T&Cs. So better pension, leave arrangements, flexibility, security etc. 

That to me is the benchmark: the swings and roundabout and expectations. You can still attract good teachers etc, but based on good benefits over pay. As mentioned a lot, you don't train to be a teacher or a nurse on the expectation of being a millionaire.


----------



## corkgal (7 Dec 2009)

Purple said:


> A poor employer is one that does not run their business in an efficient way thus damaging the medium to long term prospects of their employees. If wages and pensions are being paid that are not economically sustainable then the business is being badly run and so they are bad employers. If staff are not being used efficiently then the business is being badly run and so they are bad employers. If staffing levels are higher than necessary because of structural inefficiencies then the business is being badly run and so they are bad employers.
> 
> That’s my question; are the market rates set at what is being paid by large multinationals that conduct most of their business out of the country or should they be set at what is being paid in the SME sector?


A poor employer to the employee is one who treat their staff badly, with unnecessary pay cuts. A poor employer is one who does not seize the opportunity presented by its workforce to reform.

Is there a difference in your industry? Not in mine. Why would anyone stay with the SME? Unless they are monkeys!!!


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2009)

corkgal said:


> A poor employer to the employee is one who treat their staff badly, with unnecessary pay cuts.


 I agree, but that’s not what is happening in the public sector at the moment. However painful the cuts are for those on the receiving end they are absolutely necessary.



corkgal said:


> A poor employer is one who does not seize the opportunity presented by its workforce to reform.


 A poor employer is one that relies on its workforce to drive reform, allows them a veto over changes or allows a “them and us” mentality to develop within management or the general workforce..



corkgal said:


> Is there a difference in your industry? Not in mine. Why would anyone stay with the SME? Unless they are monkeys!!!


 The SME sector is the engine of most economies (check out the Germanys mid-sized companies for a good example). The public sector, however well run and efficient it is, however necessary or well delivered their services are, does not create wealth; private industry does.

Why do people stay with SME companies? There are many reasons; they do what their father/mother did, they don’t like bureaucratic organisations, they do like meritocracies, they are interested in a particular field or sector, they want to work for themselves and see it as a stepping stone, they can earn more money etc etc.


----------



## Mpsox (7 Dec 2009)

corkgal said:


> A poor employer is one who does not seize the opportunity presented by its workforce to reform.


 
A poor employer is one who let's unions decide how the company should be run. 
A poor employer is one who accepts persistant inefficiencies and does not try to manage his workforce and his operation in the most cost-efficient manner (note I said cost efficient, not cheapest, there is a difference).


----------



## censuspro (7 Dec 2009)

We could start by benchmarking the PRSI rates. Why do public sector emplyees pay less PRSI than private sector?


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> We could start by benchmarking the PRSI rates. Why do public sector emplyees pay less PRSI than private sector?



Post 1995 public sector employees pay full PRSI


----------



## RonanC (7 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> We could start by benchmarking the PRSI rates. Why do public sector emplyees pay less PRSI than private sector?


 
Can you back this up with a link please?


----------



## Firefly (7 Dec 2009)

webbs said:


> Why not spread this across all sectors of the economy that way we will have a workforce who would be unable to even think about having a disposable income as they would be unsure one month to the next regarding their jobs.
> They would be unwilling to contribute to the economy as they would save any money they could to help in the likely outcome of being laid off, they would also be unable to secure mortgages, loans etc and so would further retreat from contributing to the economy.


 
Individual borrowing would reduce at the beginning but as people put away a realistic rainy day fund normal spending would resume for day to day things. I agree borrowing at the high end on things such as new cars would reduce. I work on such a contract basis and didn't have any difficulty getting a mortgage as I had saved a 20% deposit.


----------



## Brianne (7 Dec 2009)

I have been following a lot of the debates on the public sector stuff with interest and sometimes annoyance. Some of the opinions on both sides are so ridiculous that I couldn't be bothered replying to them;to be honest my life is too short.
However, I have come to one conclusion. There is a level of vitroil out there that is frightening and often is wrong in its sweeping assumptions. I've spent my life in the public service and have seen the times when I was glad of the security but hated the bad wages but as I had no interest in business and frankly didn't want to spend my life working in that environment , I never thought of leaving and going into something more lucrative. 
I also like being employed, don't want to employ anyone and don't mind being told what to do. Equally I also knew how to manage my budget and having loads of money was not an issue. And yes, the level of responsibility that I've had and my enjoyment of the job which often meant I stayed late and took work home and my own education would probably meant more money in the private sector. 
And yes , I was sick during my working life and I have taken paid sick leave and been grateful for it.In fact often in my own job, the work or a lot of it would be there for you when you came back ,the same when you went on holidays, for over ten years, I never took more than a week off together as otherwise I would be overwhelmed when I returned.
So all in all, I am a happy public servant. I am also a realistic one and yes , we have to balance the budget and as this government , our employer, seems to have over recruited in the last few years , we will have to see some changes. Furthermore , I will go further and say that I personally thought that the government missed a chance with benchmarking. There was an opportunity lost.I also saw the private sector charge the state the biggest prices for services it could get away with during the boom years. This applied to construction, IT, and supplies;the private sector made a lot of money out of this government.

But, with all this vitroil , boy am I glad that we got benchmarking!!!!
Imagine if we hadn't, they still be on here talking about out great jobs and screaming for wage cuts!!!

The discussions on this forums and the campaign by Independent News and Media are so nasty that even people like me who for the most part are middle of the road are being radicalised.

What can we do ? Not a lot perhaps. 
However,maybe stop buying the Independent Group papers, why should we subject ourselves to personal invective and PAY for it?
Let the Private Sector posters who profess the neo liberal economics of the Bush admin have these fora to themselves; they have such a different view point that all you're doing by engaging with them is feeding their ire., bad for you and bad for them.
Think about your spending , in fact the way things are going most of us are down between 400 and 600 Euros a month, maybe it's time to start saving and remember that most of us aren't eligible for anything if you end up leaving your job because it's impossible, which is not an unrealistic situation due to non replacement of staff etc in many jobs.. Think of yourself and save, don't waste your money,the private sector won't thank you for it, so go for it, look after yourself.
And remember who put you in this position, come the next election!!!!!


----------



## bogle (7 Dec 2009)

Brianne said:


> Let the Private Sector posters who profess the neo liberal economics of the Bush admin have these fora to themselves; they have such a different view point that all you're doing by engaging with them is feeding their ire...



But it's fun to wind them up. Personally I love to throw in the odd hand grenade from time to time to see what sort of furious reaction its gets from AAMs resident captains of industry - you know the type - heroes of the private sector who spend half the day posting on the internet


----------



## DerKaiser (7 Dec 2009)

bogle said:


>



Hope that doesn't turn into  on wednesday


----------



## bogle (7 Dec 2009)

DerKaiser said:


> Hope that doesn't turn into  on wednesday



Ah ha, I now see why they call this section Letting Off Steam!


----------



## Firefly (8 Dec 2009)

Brianne said:


> I also saw the private sector charge the state the biggest prices for services it could get away with during the boom years. This applied to construction, IT, and supplies;the private sector made a lot of money out of this government.
> 
> 
> 
> And remember who put you in this position, come the next election!!!!!


 
I agree they were obscene but the blame lies with the government for paying these prices

On the one hand you moan about supposedly being down 400 - 600 a month and next you're advocating returning the present government.


----------



## Towger (8 Dec 2009)

The should be benchmarked against the Public Sector Wages of other Euro Zone countries. I know you don't like it, but it is a simple solution with not much room for BS, unlike 'Benchmarking'. The 'Ireland is Different' argument is just pie in the sky, we don't have oil wells (Ray Burke gave away our gas) or the like printing us money. etc etc

BTW: The same should happen to SW payments.


----------



## Protocol (8 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> We could start by benchmarking the PRSI rates. Why do public sector emplyees pay less PRSI than private sector?


 

Public servants hired pre April 1995 pay less PRSI and receive much fewer benefits.


----------



## shnaek (8 Dec 2009)

Protocol said:


> Public servants hired pre April 1995 pay less PRSI and receive much fewer benefits.


They receive the same benefits as the self employed, but the self empoyed pay full PRSI.


----------



## csirl (8 Dec 2009)

> However,maybe stop buying the Independent Group papers, why should we subject ourselves to personal invective and PAY for it?
> Let the Private Sector posters who profess the neo liberal economics of the Bush admin have these fora to themselves; they have such a different view point that all you're doing by engaging with them is feeding their ire., bad for you and bad for them.
> Think about your spending , in fact the way things are going most of us are down between 400 and 600 Euros a month, maybe it's time to start saving and remember that most of us aren't eligible for anything if you end up leaving your job because it's impossible, which is not an unrealistic situation due to non replacement of staff etc in many jobs.. Think of yourself and save, don't waste your money,the private sector won't thank you for it, so go for it, look after yourself.
> And remember who put you in this position, come the next election!!!!!


 
I get the impression from public servant friends and relatives that they are deliberately not using the services of companies who's high level executives have been publically critical of the public service. They are also making efforts not to be ripped off by their fellow citizens as they can no longer afford to be - hence trips to the north and purchasing over the internet instead of shopping in Ireland.

The penny does not appear to have dropped for the vast majority of private sector firms. Yes, many have reduced prices, but not to reasonable levels - they are still creaming it. Many will go to the wall because of this. I know the organisation I work for has made a policy decision in recent weeks not to even bother seeking quotes from Irish companies for some services as the prices are not even close to being competitive.


----------



## Purple (8 Dec 2009)

csirl said:


> The penny does not appear to have dropped for the vast majority of private sector firms. Yes, many have reduced prices, but not to reasonable levels - they are still creaming it. Many will go to the wall because of this. I know the organisation I work for has made a policy decision in recent weeks not to even bother seeking quotes from Irish companies for some services as the prices are not even close to being competitive.


 If companies are “creaming it” they will not go out of business. 
The main problem is that our cost base, as a nation, is still way too high and as long as it’s cheaper to drive to our nearest neighbour to shop (one of the biggest and richest countries in the world) then our costs will remain too high. When our costs are lower than Northern Ireland we will be back on the right track, till then we are, and will continue to be, screwed.
Once we have out cost base back at a competitive level we need to decide how much we can afford to spend on public services and then decide what services we can get for that money.


----------



## csirl (8 Dec 2009)

Purple said:


> If companies are “creaming it” they will not go out of business.
> The main problem is that our cost base, as a nation, is still way too high and as long as it’s cheaper to drive to our nearest neighbour to shop (one of the biggest and richest countries in the world) then our costs will remain too high. When our costs are lower than Northern Ireland we will be back on the right track, till then we are, and will continue to be, screwed.
> Once we have out cost base back at a competitive level we need to decide how much we can afford to spend on public services and then decide what services we can get for that money.


 
The big issue is that the Government are not adjusting our competitiveness in tandem in all areas of the economy. Unless its all done together, then the better people in areas that have been adjusted will drift into those that havent.


----------



## Purple (8 Dec 2009)

csirl said:


> The big issue is that the Government are not adjusting our competitiveness in tandem in all areas of the economy. Unless its all done together, then the better people in areas that have been adjusted will drift into those that havent.


 Agreed.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

Towger said:


> The should be benchmarked against the Public Sector Wages of other Euro Zone countries. I know you don't like it, but it is a simple solution with not much room for BS, unlike 'Benchmarking'. The 'Ireland is Different' argument is just pie in the sky, we don't have oil wells (Ray Burke gave away our gas) or the like printing us money. etc etc
> 
> BTW: The same should happen to SW payments.


The slight flaw with this approach is that it ignores that fact that Irish public servants need to live in Ireland, pay Irish property prices, pay Irish grocery prices, pay Irish petrol prices etc etc. They will be competing in an employment marketplace with Irish private sector organisations.

This approach of exclusively external benchmarking is a charter to tear apart public services by starving it of adequete resources.


----------



## Firefly (9 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> The slight flaw with this approach is that it ignores that fact that Irish public servants need to live in Ireland, pay Irish property prices, pay Irish grocery prices, pay Irish petrol prices etc etc. They will be competing in an employment marketplace with Irish private sector organisations.
> 
> This approach of exclusively external benchmarking is a charter to tear apart public services by starving it of adequete resources.


 
As the gov is the biggest employer by far in the state, any reduction in the wages it pays will have a knock on effect on the price of goods and services in the public sector in order for these products to sell. Consequently as prices need to fall, wages, rents etc will fall there also. End result is a more competitive economy which will be able to export. Instead of the government lagging the general economy it is well placed to lead the economy in this regard.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

Firefly said:


> As the gov is the biggest employer by far in the state, any reduction in the wages it pays will have a knock on effect on the price of goods and services in the public sector in order for these products to sell. Consequently as prices need to fall, wages, rents etc will fall there also. End result is a more competitive economy which will be able to export. Instead of the government lagging the general economy it is well placed to lead the economy in this regard.


Public servants are not going to pay the price for any lack of competition in the economy, or be the guinea pigs that get squeezed while economists try out their theories.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Dec 2009)

I think that people are wary of keeping wages inflated because living costs are high.

With 20:20 vision no one can argue that our reponse of increasing wages to chase house prices was an inappropriate response that led us to ignore the real issue (lax lending regulations)

In this context anyone who simply accepts that wages should be kept high if living costs are high have really learned nothing from this crisis.

That's not to say I'd set out on an immediate path of benchmarking public servant pay against that in latvia though!  But I do think as an entire country we need to regress (in a measured and uniform way if possible) towards a more internationally appropriate norm in both wages and living costs


----------



## Firefly (9 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> Public servants are not going to pay the price for any lack of competition in the economy, or be the guinea pigs that get squeezed while economists try out their theories.


 
I'm describing what I believe would happen if wages in the PS fell. I never mentioned the PS should pay the price on their own - look at the number of unemployed people who had to pay a far bigger price.

It all in the end comes down to ability to pay. If we want to keep wages in the PS the same we have a choice, either reduce numbers or make Joe/Jane grand-daughter pay


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

Firefly said:


> . If we want to keep wages in the PS the same we have a choice, either reduce numbers or make Joe/Jane grand-daughter pay


It's not that simple - there is still lots of money left on the table in other areas that aren't being hit.


----------



## Caveat (9 Dec 2009)

OK, so what do _you_ think PS sector wages should be benchmarked against Complainer?


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

Caveat said:


> OK, so what do _you_ think PS sector wages should be benchmarked against Complainer?


Against comparable private sector roles where possible, though there are some roles that either have no comparable private sector role (e.g. policy development, gardai, army) and some roles where the public sector is the dominant player (nursing, fire services) that a comparison to private sector is meaningless.


----------



## shnaek (9 Dec 2009)

Complainer said:


> Against comparable private sector roles where possible, though there are some roles that either have no comparable private sector role (e.g. policy development, gardai, army) and some roles where the public sector is the dominant player (nursing, fire services) that a comparison to private sector is meaningless.



Not so meaningless back in the ATM days of benchmarking though...


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2009)

shnaek said:


> Not so meaningless back in the ATM days of benchmarking though...


Do you have some information about the benchmarking comparisions that you'd like to share with the class?


----------



## Mouldy (10 Dec 2009)

Interesting question. The answer is nothing.

The first and hopefully, only benchmarking exercise was a stupid idea. All subsequent BMs would also be stupid and would give rise to a series of “adjust up/adjust down” exercises in trying to keep everyone happy.

The government is an employer. What it pays its staff is entirely up it itself. The government has chosen over the last decade to form consensus with unions, who did their job very well, to agree a rate of pay for its employees. Whether or not the private sector get paid more or less is irrelevant. Whether or not the private sector like what the government are paying, notwithstanding that a private sector employee might leave to join the public service, is irrelevant.

The above opinion is based on a truth that people generally refuse to accept. Tax is paid by the public and spent by the government. There is no such thing as taxpayer’s money. It ceases to be your money the second you pay it. It then becomes exchequer money. Try asking for yours back if you don’t believe me.

This reply has taken into account the fact the goverment are paying too much or too little to fantastic, hardworking, lying thieving public service, depending who you're talking to.

M


----------



## DonDub (10 Dec 2009)

Mouldy said:


> Interesting question. The answer is nothing.
> 
> The first and hopefully, only benchmarking exercise was a stupid idea. All subsequent BMs would also be stupid and would give rise to a series of “adjust up/adjust down” exercises in trying to keep everyone happy.



Benchmarking could make sense - but only if used to calibrate  the cost of services (public and private) and manufacturing here against that of our major markets, and those of our competitors. If we had done this over the last ten years, we would have avoided the worst excesses of the boom expenditure bubble. What we did instead was to create a 'pyramid scheme' fiscal approach. Where, those that could ( bankers, developers, unions etc) played a high stakes (winner takes all) game - that would inevitably blow the lid off the economy. 
The world doesn't owe us a high standard of living - we either compete and prosper, or  fail to compete and wither......ugly, brutal perhaps, but the truth....


----------



## censuspro (14 Dec 2009)

RonanC said:


> Can you back this up with a link please?



Yes I can http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw14_apr09/Pages/ClassC.aspx


----------



## RonanC (14 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> Yes I can http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw14_apr09/Pages/ClassC.aspx


 
@ censuspro, those rates only apply to anyone employed *before 1995* in the public service. These people are not entitled to the same benefits as others paying the same prsi. Anyone employed *after 1995 pays full prsi.*

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw14_apr09/Pages/ClassA.aspx


----------



## censuspro (14 Dec 2009)

Either way they still pay a lower class of PRSI.


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> Either way they still pay a lower class of PRSI.


 
Because they don't get the same benefits.......


----------



## Towger (14 Dec 2009)

Sunny said:


> Because they don't get the same benefits.......



It will be interesting to see how *Universal* next years 'Universal Social Contribution' system is...


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2009)

Towger said:


> It will be interesting to see how *Universal* next years 'Universal Social Contribution' system is...


 
I agree. Wouldn't envy them coming up with a scheme


----------



## censuspro (14 Dec 2009)

Sunny said:


> Because they don't get the same benefits.......



What? That's the whole point of the debate that's been going on for the past 18 months. The benefits in the public sector are far greater than those in the private sector which defeats the point of having bench marking.


----------



## RonanC (14 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> The benefits in the public sector are far greater than those in the private sector


 
censuspro, will you please research your information before coming out with sweeping statements. 

Pre 1995 public servants get very little if any benefits from prsi apart from their pension on retirement. Post 1995 employees pay full rate prsi and therefore are entitled to all benefits available, just like anybody else in any sector.

Typical Irish Independant crap as usual, unresearched, unqualified, unbelievable!


----------



## Sunny (14 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> What? That's the whole point of the debate that's been going on for the past 18 months. The benefits in the public sector are far greater than those in the private sector which defeats the point of having bench marking.


 
RonanC is right. Research the whole PRSI topic. And I say that as someone who has been openly critical of many aspects of the public sector.


----------



## censuspro (14 Dec 2009)

RonanC said:


> censuspro, will you please research your information before coming out with sweeping statements.
> 
> Pre 1995 public servants get very little if any benefits from prsi apart from their pension on retirement. Post 1995 employees pay full rate prsi and therefore are entitled to all benefits available, just like anybody else in any sector.
> 
> Typical Irish Independant crap as usual, unresearched, unqualified, unbelievable!




Ronan spare me the patronizing tone. I'm sure your more intelligent and well read than everyone else here. Do you know exactly what the PRSI benefits are? The main one being the contributory old aged pension which, as you've researched, pre 1995 public sector employees get anyway.


----------



## becky (14 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> The main one being the contributory old aged pension which, as you've researched, pre 1995 public sector employees get anyway.


 
Actually no pre 95 do not have an entitlement to the state OAP, nor do they get get maternity, dental or opthalmic benefits. The pension they receive is paid by the former employer.

Not sure what benefits we get as I've never really looked into it.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2009)

becky said:


> Actually no pre 95 do not have an entitlement to the state OAP, nor do they get get maternity, dental or opthalmic benefits. The pension they receive is paid by the former employer.


 While I agree with your general point I would qualify it by saying that their pensions are mostly paid for by contributions from the current employees. The balance, a much smaller figure than it was a few months ago, is paid for by the state.


----------



## Protocol (14 Dec 2009)

Pre-1995 public servants do NOT get the CSP as they do not pay 4% full-rate PRSI. They pay 0.9%.


They do pay superannuation contributions, 6.5% of wages, plus the new pension levy.


----------



## RonanC (14 Dec 2009)

censuspro said:


> Ronan spare me the patronizing tone. I'm sure your more intelligent and well read than everyone else here. Do you know exactly what the PRSI benefits are? The main one being the contributory old aged pension which, as you've researched, pre 1995 public sector employees get anyway.


 
@censuspro, I'm sorry if you think I am patronizing you, it wasn't my intention and I am far from intelligent and I hardly read. Anyway.....

You asked a question to which you got an answer, but it appears from my reading of this website that many people would rather believe what they read in certain newpapers or hear on the tv instead of actually looking into the situation and finding the correct information first.


----------

