I got a job in the public sector and didnt have to sit any written exams I just had to do an interview but that is because my job is specialised and requires a specific qualification. I think I was always going to end up in the public sector, both my parents are working for the same people since they were 17 (eircom and HSE) and my sister is a civil servant. Just turned out though that when I want to college, during my degree I discovered a chance to do a masters that would leave me with a job I would really enjoy and that job was in the public sector. I worked in it in the private sector and could probably have made more money by negotiating things but the reason I left was because I was commuting 4 hours a day 5 days a week and I wanted to have a baby and wasn't going to do 4 hours a day on the train/road while pregnant and would not have gotten paid maternity leave in the private sector job I was in. So I sought out a public sector job and I got it. People made fun of me but I knew what I wanted and I got it and have since been able to secure a higher level job which is even better suited to my background and qualifications
If public sector workers took 1 week unpaid holiday
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
Rubbish.
The wide range of professions and job titles that you mention is entirely irrelevant.
WHat is reevant is what the public sector costs the country.
And by definition the average salary is inherently very relevant.
The only time an average is perhaps not relevant is when you are dealing with a small data set when the average can be skewed and therefore misrepresent the underlying data.
Since this is not the case with the public sector then the average is very relevant.
Out of curiosity may i ask - if the average is not relevant in this scenario then in what scenario exactly would the calculation of an average be useful in your mind?
That is rubbish. When you're dealing with thousands and thousands of people in jobs ranging from CEO of a major semi state to the person who cleans the toilets in the Garda Barracks, what is the point of quoting an 'average salary' to justify across the board policies re pay cuts and unpaid holidays. That is what I meant about it being not relevant. You simply can't make fiscal policies etc based on a meaningless 'average'.
Here's why !
The average public sector wage is 50k.
The average private sector wage is 37k.
At a glance you can see a huge discrepancy between the 2 figures without any reasonable justification for it whatsoever.
Therefore - the average can be used to not unreasonably suggest that the pay in the public should decrease siginificantly
i.e. public sector wages need to drop by a quarter to be in line with private sector as they are currently 30% greater than the private.
ANd please don't give the point about skewed averages as the size of the pool of data used in both is very large.
By the way - I am not suggesting that everyone shoudl get a 25% pay cut in teh public sector.
However - the average salary does display at a glance that the public sector bill needs to reduce significantly.
As to how that is implemented is another argument.
To conclude - the average figure can indeed be used to justify accross the board policies re pay cuts.
PS - check out this link
http://ronanlyons.wordpress.com/200...d-the-e50000-question-its-not-that-difficult/
In case anyone disputes my average figures used it shows a graph of the averages for public vs private.
This was from before the new data became apparent during the week which pushed the public above 50k.
It would be more meaningful to look at how comparable jobs in the public and private sector match up. If for instance the average salary for people doing secretarial work in the public sector is much higher salary than the average in the private sector then there is a case for stating that the public sector employee is overpaid. If someone doing systems analysis in the public sector is on a lower salary than the private sector, then they are actually being underpaid in comparison to the going rate. But just doing a blanket comparison between public and private sector is too simplistic. For instance, the private sector would include many, many migrants willing to take jobs the Irish have refused and to work for the minimum wage. If these migrants hadn't been available, the salaries would have had to have been increased to attract Irish workers.
And by the way, I'm not saying that there aren't overpaid people in the public sector, or areas that are overstaffed. I just think any adjustments need to be properly targetted. Remarks like, 'the whole of the public sector should take a week's unpaid holiday' are not very helpful at the moment.
Might help for you to read my other posts to see what context I was putting this in. I wasnt complaining about not getting a job.
Apparantly the public sector couldnt fill any positions back then, but I know better (as I wanted to work in the public service as I wanted job security).
If people are going to make throwout comments like "nobody wanted public sector jobs" then you need to accurate and balanced in your assessment. This statement was completely inaccurate because it suggested that private sector workers simply worked there for the money . .
People are constantly arguing private v public debates here but i dont see why some people cant see both sides of the spectrum. I just think both sides are generally as ignorant as each other . .
I take your point that it would be better to compare the average of like-for-like jobs in teh public versius the private.
However - given that there is such a large discrepancy between the entire average (i.e. 30% !!) then it is reasonable to conclude that
it will also be significanly higher for like-for-like roles.
Getting back to our original dispute re the usefulness of general averages i think they are not irrelevant and provided an interesting insight at a glance for this particular argument of private versus public.
YEs - they can be bettered as you suggested - but far from irrelevant.
I have to disagree with your point about the minimum wage people in the private sector.
Firstly you were claiming that the average for the public sector is most likely skewed upwards.
ANd now you are saying that the inclusion of minimum wgae people skews the private average downwards.
I'm suspecting you have a bias towards the public sector given the way you choose to interpret the averages.
The fact of the matter is that these people on the minimum wage are righly included in the average for the private.
There are other mundane jobs in the public sector that would also be on the min wage if they were in the private. The only reason the minimum wage does not exist in the public sector is because of benchmarking gone wrong.
And you also brought up a good point about overstaffing which really is the salt in the wound for the private sector.
i.e. not only are they being overpaid - but there are also way too many of them !! i.e. being hit on the double !
This is a major burden for the private sector to be carrying and reform is definitely required.
You haven't made any other posts on this thread. What context should I be aware of???
No, just showing how stats can be read either way and shouldn't be used as the SOLE basis for decision making.
Also, while many areas of the public service are overstaffed and should be trimmed back, there are other areas which are seriously under staffed, eg A&E Units, Schools' psychological services.
All I'm saying is that a one size fits all solution to the public sector pay bill won't work and is insulting to many hard working, fairly paid people.
My mistake, I meant my posts on other threads.
Its impossible for anything meaningful to come out of a debate on private or public savings that can be made. Both sides are ignorant to the others cause or tribulations.
I was making the point that saying people didnt necessarily choose private sector over public for money.
Far too many people on this board have a chip on their shoulder, convinced that any opinion offered in direct contradiction of theirs, is either propaganda or simply somebody championing their vested interests. I didnt realise how paranoid people in this country were . . . What ever happened to the days of accepting a valid point as that . . . A valid point . .
Have to concur with the criticism of this post: this is nonsense. There may have been some trouble filling some posts in the public sector when the jobs market was at its tightest -but there was just as much trouble doing so in the private sector. The public sector has always been a very attractive employment option in Ireland.
To be fair, not the only time. It is entirely possible that the averages might not bear comparison for other reasons. If overall the public sector has a higher percentage of people with 3rd level qualifications than does the private sector, you would expect this to be reflected in higher average earnings overall. The only way to deal with the thing is - so far as possible - to compare like with like. In other words, benchmarking.
I do have a difficulty with those who maintain that it is not valid to compare the average whilst simultaneously complaining that the public service is full of low paid workers. Folks, it can't be both
Have we had high quality accurate work in the benchmarking carried out so far? That is the question which really needs to be addressed.
Fair enough. But so many people post on here, highly indignant that when they lowered themselves to apply for a public service job, they weren't snapped up immediately by a grateful Public Appointments Commission. Some of them have even gone so far as to say that this means there is definitely a 'pull' factor in getting a PS position. It never seems to occur to them that higher calibre, more impressive people applied for the same job.
For the record, I am not one of these people and never considered a PS job as below a private sector one (if anything I felt the opposite, most Private companies I have worked for treat their staff awfully!).
But if what you say is so, then it pretty much backs up what i said. There were many many people who wanted to work in the public service who simply couldnt get a job with them , even during the boom years . .
I agree. But where does this leave the stupid argument (not made by you but by lots of other people on the board) that only lazy, unambitious dullards want to work in the Public Sector and all the dynamic, ambitious people look to the private sector.
Ron Burgundy
Registered User
- Messages
- 752
I wouldnt prescribe to that line of thought.
Some people think -
- People in public service took jobs so they could doss and have it easy
- People in Private sector took jobs with more money on offer, ignoring the job security for vast riches
- That the truth is not quite as black and white as these simple assumptions
I have a couple of friends who work in the PS who brough up the whole Pensions Levy and how PS's are being targeted etc. I discussed the side of the Private sector workers and rationally debated their side aswell. Every one of them, while still a bit pssd off, actually felt like it was actually not as bad when it was put into perspective.
Its hard to have a debate on AAM (or any website) when there are so many differant kind of people, each with differant opinions or FEELINGS on topics. You will always find at least one person who is looking simply to make a nuisance of themselves by attacking any suggestions , disinterested in actually discussing a topic.
Funnily enough, whatever is going on in the country, we all have a choice to see the worst of things, or try to look for the positives (while awknowledging the negatives).