# Civil/Public Service Pay Scale Late Entrants



## appd (10 Sep 2020)

Hi All,

I am considering applying for a position within the Public Service.

The job specification lays out the pay scale. And says it is non negotiable.

€48,868 – €50,297 – €51,722 – €53,147 – €54,577 – €56,003 – €57,429 –€59,489 (LSI 1) –
€61,545 (LSI 2)

However, would anyone know whether allowance or credit is given to number of years experience in the private sector in the same field.

Or would a 25 year old and a 45 year old (with 20 years experience) both start on the bottom of the pay scale?

Best Regards.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (10 Sep 2020)

I have seen flexibility in terms of the point on the payscale at which the person comes in.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I have seen flexibility in terms of the point on the payscale at which the person comes in.



How recently? I know you could negotiate pre-2008 but understood there was a ban put in force after that. Maybe it's been lifted.


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2020)

How does your pension work? You've been paying for a PRSI pension for 20 years. Does that give you more years in your PS  pension?


----------



## Early Riser (10 Sep 2020)

Purple said:


> How does your pension work? You've been paying for a PRSI pension for 20 years. Does that give you more years in your PS  pension?



 A PS pension does not work like that. 

It is a little more complicated than this simplification, especially in the Single Scheme, but if you work for 20 years in the PS then the PS pension implicitly assumes that you will have this same portion of the State Pension, ie, 50% of State Pension. You public service occupational pension will then be 20/80 of pensionable salary minus 50% of State Pension (again it it is both more complicated and less generous than this in the Single Scheme).

Of course, if you have worked elsewhere and built up a sufficient PRSI record, you may qualify for a full State Pension. This does not make any difference to the calculation of the PS occupational pension.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Sep 2020)

appd said:


> However, would anyone know whether allowance or credit is given to number of years experience in the private sector in the same field.
> 
> Or would a 25 year old and a 45 year old (with 20 years experience) both start on the bottom of the pay scale?



With 20yrs experience in the same field, credit would certainly be applied at the interview stage.


----------



## Purple (10 Sep 2020)

Early Riser said:


> A PS pension does not work like that.
> 
> It is a little more complicated than this simplification, especially in the Single Scheme, but if you work for 20 years in the PS then the PS pension implicitly assumes that you will have this same portion of the State Pension, ie, 50% of State Pension. You public service occupational pension will then be 20/80 of pensionable salary minus 50% of State Pension (again it it is both more complicated and less generous than this in the Single Scheme).
> 
> Of course, if you have worked elsewhere and built up a sufficient PRSI record, you may qualify for a full State Pension. This does not make any difference to the calculation of the PS occupational pension.


Okay so you get whatever State pension you worked up in the private sector and then a separate pension from the State based on your public sector service?


----------



## Early Riser (10 Sep 2020)

Purple said:


> Okay so you get whatever State pension you worked up in the private sector and then a separate pension from the State based on your public sector service?



Here is an example (pre-single scheme but normal Class A PRSI). This is a rough-and-ready shorthand way of calculating the pension.

Joe works 20 years in the private sector, paying PRSI. He joins PS at 45 and retires at 65 with 20 years service on a pensionable salary of €100,000.

PS pension (roughly calculated) is €100,000 *20/80 minus €6,500. So he gets an occupational pension of €18,500.

Joe applies for his State Pension at the relevant age. This is calculated on his full PRSI record. He is probably awarded full state pension of €13,000.

Joe's PRSI record outside of his PS employment is irrelevant to the calculation of his occupational pension.

In the Single Scheme (post 2013) the occupational pension is calculated based on career average earnings rather than final salary. But the same principle.


----------



## torblednam (10 Sep 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> How recently? I know you could negotiate pre-2008 but understood there was a ban put in force after that. Maybe it's been lifted.



I'm not aware of any lifting of it, and I lost an excellent and very experienced colleague due to it, who AFAIK explored every avenue before ultimately deciding he couldn't stay for the money that the bottom of the scale pays less than a year after joining the public service.

The big negative from his, and any sensible future experienced recruits, is the career averaged pension. He couldn't afford to spend an unspecified amount of time on relatively low money (as an AO) in the expectation of progressing to a better paid position (AP), when he's only about 15 years from retirement...


----------



## AlbacoreA (10 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> With 20yrs experience in the same field, credit would certainly be applied at the interview stage.



To to be clear. Are you talking about being successful at interview. Nothing to do with where you start on the pay scale?
Any PS jobs, I've seen are very clear about you have to start at the bottom on the scale, with the exception of previous PS service may be taken into account, but there are some conditions even around that.


----------



## AlbacoreA (10 Sep 2020)

The problem for a late entrant is promotions might be slow in coming.  You'd be trying to compete with existing staff for promotions. I'd also consider that after last crash there there was embargo on recruitment and that effected promotions and everything else. There would be strong odds something similar will happen this time, they are talking about not going ahead with the last round of pay restoration etc.


----------



## 2bmortgagefree (10 Sep 2020)

Hi appd,
In terms of pay you have to start at the bottom of the scale. Of course your experience and how you demonstrate your experience at interview stage will stand to you. 
Am I right in saying your going for a HEO position? It's possible after a year or two you could progress to AP level but competition can be tough.


----------



## appd (10 Sep 2020)

Hi All, I am not sure why some posts have deviated into the area of pensions. Perhaps my original post was unclear. I was purely asking if someone with 20 years experience must start at the bottom of the pay scale. I was not referring to the interview process in any way.

Many thanks.


----------



## messyleo (10 Sep 2020)

All new entrants have to start at the minimum. End of.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (10 Sep 2020)

I’m sorry, but that just isn’t the case.

My sister-in-law works in this area and she’s here in the house as we speak and I’ve asked her. As in recruits people.

She is saying to me that someone has to come in on a pay-scale, but to use Grade VIII as an example, if someone is paid €75k in their current private sector role, he or she can be brought in on a point that isn’t the bottom point.

Think about it, it’d be crazy if there wasn’t some flexibility.


----------



## torblednam (10 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I’m sorry, but that just isn’t the case.
> 
> My sister-in-law works in this area and she’s here in the house as we speak and I’ve asked her. As in recruits people.
> 
> ...



It may be different between public sector and the civil service (Grade VIII sounds like local authority or HSE or something). I can say with certainty, having tried to help someone to navigate it, it was an absolute no. To be fair, the terms of the competitive process through which a person is recruited will state if it's the case, so there shouldn't be any illusions. 

In the case I'm familiar with (and indeed my own case when I became a civil servant and took a drop of about 15% in gross pay), the question was asked and answered at time of signing up. 

If an organisation is running a competition for HEOs and panels dozens of people, they'll be happy to just offer it to the next person down the list, if the first person says they won't start at the bottom of the scale. That's just the way the civil service works. They run a merit / competency based competition, and from their perspective it'd make no sense to appoint person number 1 at 47k, and so on down the list until number 10 says "I'm a big shot and I'm not taking a drop in money to slum it with you guys" and they get to start on 53k... 

There is a degree of flexibility when a single specific position is being recruited for, and in order to fill the position it's considered that it may be necessary to take someone in above the bottom of the scale.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (11 Sep 2020)

The OP’s query refers to the public service, not the civil service.

But let’s take Revenue, an area you’re familiar with. The Big 4 Directors who were whacked in 2008/2009 and joined Revenue...they didn’t go in on the first point of any scale.


----------



## torblednam (11 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The OP’s query refers to the public service, not the civil service.
> 
> But let’s take Revenue, an area you’re familiar with. The Big 4 Directors who were whacked in 2008/2009 and joined Revenue...they didn’t go in on the first point of any scale.



You're talking about a handful of people going in at a quite high level there i.e. closer to the example I gave above. 

The OP is talking about a mid-management position, the equivalent of a HEO; there'll be loads of applicants, plenty panelled, and anyone who doesn't want to start at the bottom of the scale will be told they can like it or lump it.


----------



## Leper (11 Sep 2020)

1. I would advise the OP to ask for credit in payscale for experience earned elsewhere. 
2. If the public/civil service needs expertise there are avenues for starting people up the scale irrespective of some sanctions imposed after the last recession.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Sep 2020)

AlbacoreA said:


> To to be clear. Are you talking about being successful at interview. Nothing to do with where you start on the pay scale?



Yes, I would imagine when applying for a job getting on the payscale in the first instance would be first priority - the point at which you enter would be secondary. 
In other words, if you don't succeed at interview level then the question is moot. Having 20yrs experience should offer some advantages over someone with no or little experience.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Think about it, it’d be crazy if there wasn’t some flexibility.



Nothing crazy about it all. If someone can command a €75k job in priv sector they are unlikely to be hunting for a similar position in pub sec for €48k. 
On the other hand, if they _used to _command a €75k wage but now, for whatever reason, are no longer able to (say unemployed) then €48k with prospect of salary returning to higher levels in future, increment or on promotion, would surely be an option to consider.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (11 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> My sister-in-law works in this area and she’s here in the house as we speak and I’ve asked her. As in recruits people.
> 
> She is saying to me that someone has to come in on a pay-scale, but to use Grade VIII as an example, if someone is paid €75k in their current private sector role, he or she can be brought in on a point that isn’t the bottom point.



Can you ask her if there is written PER advice on this point?

I looked at circulars.gov.ie and found nothing conclusive.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (11 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Nothing crazy about it all. If someone can command a €75k job in priv sector they are unlikely to be hunting for a similar position in pub sec for €48k.
> On the other hand, if they _used to _command a €75k wage but now, for whatever reason, are no longer able to (say unemployed) then €48k with prospect of salary returning to higher levels in future, increment or on promotion, would surely be an option to consider.



This makes no sense at all.

If someone is looking for a salary that they can’t actually command, then of course in any walk of life they’re not going to get it.

All I am saying is that people are not tied to coming in on the first point of a salary scale.

People seem to think that it is a hard and fast rule; it is not.


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The OP’s query refers to the public service, not the civil service.
> 
> But let’s take Revenue, an area you’re familiar with. The Big 4 Directors who were whacked in 2008/2009 and joined Revenue...they didn’t go in on the first point of any scale.



Revenue is a bad example. They don't seem to be bound by the rules that other departments have. 
AFAIK, during the recruitment embargo it was one of the few departments still taking on new people.


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> This makes no sense at all.
> 
> If someone is looking for a salary that they can’t actually command, then of course in any walk of life they’re not going to get it.
> 
> ...



I assume the various departments get approval if they can hire someone, and at what salary. They might get special permission for specific roles. But I would be a mistake to assume you can just haggle a better salary for all roles, if the advert clearly starts it starting bottom of grade.


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Sep 2020)

The issue with starting at bottom of grade, that it may be hard to move up the scale and to better grades.

I can see embargo's and pay freezes coming soon, to pay for the Covid etc.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> All I am saying is that people are not tied to coming in on the first point of a salary scale.
> 
> People seem to think that it is a hard and fast rule; it is not.



As far as I know, all public sector jobs are advertised with the same terms and conditions applied to all prospective applicants. This is to try and ensure a level playing field for all candidates.
What you seem to be suggesting that upon being offered a position, the prospective candidate can then try to negotiate terms that are more favourable to him/her than what was actually advertised?
You suggested that it would be crazy not to have this flexibility, I'm suggesting that this 'flexibility' for posts advertised does not exist and for good reason.
If the position does not offer opportunity to start on a higher point by virtue of experience or expertise etc, then the successful candidate will start at the first point of the payscale.

The position in the OP states the payscale to be non-negotiable.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (11 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> As far as I know, all public sector jobs are advertised with the same terms and conditions applied to all prospective applicants. This is to try and ensure a level playing field for all candidates.
> What you seem to be suggesting that upon being offered a position, the prospective candidate can then try to negotiate terms that are more favourable to him/her than what was actually advertised?
> You suggested that it would be crazy not to have this flexibility, I'm suggesting that this 'flexibility' for posts advertised does not exist and for good reason.
> If the position does not offer opportunity to start on a higher point by virtue of experience or expertise etc, then the successful candidate will start at the first point of the payscale.
> ...



Good Lord...

I’m not saying the payscale is negotiable.

I’m saying the point at which you start is in response to claims that these things are absolute.


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Good Lord...
> 
> I’m not saying the payscale is negotiable.
> 
> I’m saying the point at which you start is in response to claims that these things are absolute.



I don't think it is normally, even for the starting position. Not that it doesn't happen as it obviously does.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Sep 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I’m not saying the payscale is negotiable.
> 
> I’m saying the point at which you start is in response to claims that these things are absolute.



I'm saying, along with others, that the point at which you start at, along with the payscale, is non-negotiable where the advertised position identifies at starting point on the payscale and is absent of any condition that allows a negotiation of the starting point. 
You suggested that it would be crazy not to have some flexibility in the starting point along the payscale, I suggested it is not crazy at all.


----------



## AlbacoreA (11 Sep 2020)

That and the pension structure are the main disadvantages of late entry to the Public Sector. 

Obviously if you come in at a higher point, it negates these disadvantages.


----------



## torblednam (11 Sep 2020)

AlbacoreA said:


> Revenue is a bad example. They don't seem to be bound by the rules that other departments have.
> AFAIK, during the recruitment embargo it was one of the few departments still taking on new people.



Revenue is a great example for that very reason. They got more latitude than other departments, but still in practically all cases (the exception being a literal handful of specific expert / specialist roles at PO level) they absolutely do / will not entertain starting pay above the bottom of the scale. Everyone that placed on the panel would have to turn down the job due to the starting pay, in order for there to be evidence that they couldn't recruit for the role without starting at a higher point on the scale. In the context of a panel for jobs below PO level, that going to be dozens or even hundreds of people. 

Gordon's example is in no way comparable to the OP's circumstances, which, based on the salary scale is probably around the 3rd grade in a structure that probably has 6 or 7 grades i.e. the middle, and hence no shortage of people applying, panelling and being willing to accept the job on the normal terms.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2020)

torblednam said:


> Everyone that placed on the panel would have to turn down the job due to the starting pay, in order for there to be evidence that they couldn't recruit for the role without starting at a higher point on the scale. In the context of a panel for jobs below PO level, that going to be dozens or even hundreds of people.


There must be a considerable expense associated with that sort of recruitment process. It seems strange to spend more money and time weeding out all of the ambitious and motivated candidates until you find the one who will settle for less money and no real prospects.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (15 Sep 2020)

Purple said:


> There must be a considerable expense associated with that sort of recruitment process.



Actually it's pretty cheap to run big competitions and create large panels. Vast majority of people offered jobs take them.

Whether it gets the right candidates is another matter.......


----------



## AlbacoreA (15 Sep 2020)

Purple said:


> There must be a considerable expense associated with that sort of recruitment process. It seems strange to spend more money and time weeding out all of the ambitious and motivated candidates until you find the one who will settle for less money and no real prospects.



There is often no concept of expense or time in these environments.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Actually it's pretty cheap to run big competitions and create large panels. Vast majority of people offered jobs take them.


Do you not have to interview them? That means interview boards with outside members and the associated costs. It means record creation and retention and more stuff to audit etc. 



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Whether it gets the right candidates is another matter.......


 That's not unique to the Public Sector.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (15 Sep 2020)

Purple said:


> Do you not have to interview them? That means interview boards with outside members and the associated costs. It means record creation and retention and more stuff to audit etc.



Of course. It's just that doing it in bulk is cheaper per person hired than an individual competition with shortlisting for each individual post.


----------



## Early Riser (15 Sep 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Of course. It's just that doing it in bulk is cheaper per person hired than an individual competition with shortlisting for each individual post.



Are not The Greens proposing to outlaw these sort of "three for two" deals ?


----------



## torblednam (15 Sep 2020)

Purple said:


> There must be a considerable expense associated with that sort of recruitment process. It seems strange to spend more money and time weeding out all of the ambitious and motivated candidates until you find the one who will settle for less money and no real prospects.



I just want to check that I follow the logic of this.

Are you asserting that, by definition, ambitious and motivated = unwilling to work for the money on offer?

If so, since earnings in the private sector are more negotiable (and in theory unlimited), it follows that nobody in the higher levels of the public sector are motivated or ambitious. 

Or am I missing some nuance to what you're saying there?


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2020)

torblednam said:


> I just want to check that I follow the logic of this.
> 
> Are you asserting that, by definition, ambitious and motivated = unwilling to work for the money on offer?
> 
> ...


The people at the higher level of the Public sector are there longer and generally enjoy far better wages and pensions than those who are entering now. 
If you want someone to progress through the ranks then you are hiring them based on what they will be doing now but also based on what they are capable of doing in the future. If the recruitment process is based only on what they will be doing today then there's not much in the way of succession planning going on.

I am looking for a mechanical engineer at the moment. Their starting salary will be somewhere between €30k and €60k, depending on what they bring to the party.


----------



## AlbacoreA (15 Sep 2020)

Such is the dilemma of the public service. You are trading security against risk, and mobility. Including upward mobility. 
You can't get people in a lower wages unless you offer security and potential future earning. 

You break that model if you parachute people at higher wages in skipping those who have made that trade off. 
If you do that you won't be able to hire people at the lower wages, or retain them, or have any credibility in the security. 

At which point you might as well privatize it, which has its own problems.


----------



## Live Well (17 Sep 2020)

torblednam said:


> If an organisation is running a competition for HEOs and *panels* dozens of people, they'll be happy to just offer it to the next person down the list, if the first person says they won't start at the bottom of the scale. That's just the way the civil service works. They run a merit / competency based competition, and from their perspective it'd make no sense to appoint person number 1 at 47k, and so on down the list until number 10 says "I'm a big shot and I'm not taking a drop in money to slum it with you guys" and they get to start on 53k...
> 
> There is a degree of flexibility when a *single* specific position is being recruited for, and in order to fill the position it's considered that it may be necessary to take someone in above the bottom of the scale.



I agree with the above. When most of the Panels (PO, AP, HEP, EO etc.) are created these days it is normal to have ~200 people qualified, ordered and waiting on the panel. From a Public\Civil sector point of view, all 200 can do the jobs advertised so there is no negotiation, you are offered a job and you either accept it or don't. If you don't accept it, for whatever reason - it could be that you don't like that Department or location, you usually will get a second offer and then you are removed from the list. From the organisation point of view, you do not get to interview the candidates or pick between them, you get the next candidate on the list as they are all qualified..

For specific jobs, where they do not have a panel, I have seen candidates ask for an incremental assessment and sometimes there can be some latitude. However, even with those, they are very specific and rules based and you need to have met every single criteria. I haven't heard of any for some time now so they could even be finished with. We find it easy to get good candidates these days so starting people at point one on the scale is normal.


----------

