ICTUs 'Get Up, Stand Up campaign'

[S.L.F]

On that I agree; it understates the problem. Since 2006 wages in the public sector have continued to forge ahead at break-neck speeds while wages in the public sector have stagnated of reduced.

From the people I know in the PS all they want is fairness not to be scapegoated into being the bad guys because they are like you and me.

They are a highly educated work force and can see the writing on the wall and really have a problem with the way they are being treated.

The important point is that the public sector has increased massively as a proportion of the overall economy.

Every time the govt decides to make a new agency more PS have to be employed in other words if you want someone to blame for the state of the PS blame the ones responsible, the FF govt.

NO I SHOULDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO REPLICATE AN ESRI STUDY FIRST HAND IN ORDER TO MAKE A POINT HERE

Unless your point is based on flawed edivence

This is a discussion forum and we all have our own jobs.

Not me I'm off today

I'm not going to live my life either saying nothing or having to back up the reports of reputable research institutes.

Do you think you can compare a fully trained Gardas wage to that to a security guard then you can accept the ERSI report if not then you are only kidding yourself.

I know you guys would love to silence the ESRI and will argue to the death with its flawed findings.

Fixed that for you

Take off your blindfold and accept that the findings of an independent research institute paint a pretty accurate picture of an unbiased reality.

Do you not understand?

The ESB, RTE, Bord Na Mona, Bord Gas etc etc are all very highly paid people with great perks and a great pension they haven't been hit with the pension levy and I would doubt very much if a wage cut was decided that they would be hit with it.

I said I a different thread that I know a guy who is paid €80,000 a year as a wage clerk in the ESB, Please show me a wage clerk in the Civil Service who gets anything like that kind of money.

He has been included in the study.

 

[Sunny]

Do you think you can compare a fully trained Gardas wage to that to a security guard then you can accept the ERSI report if not then you are only kidding yourself.


Do you not understand?

The ESB, RTE, Bord Na Mona, Bord Gas etc etc are all very highly paid people with great perks and a great pension they haven't been hit with the pension levy and I would doubt very much if a wage cut was decided that they would be hit with it.

I said I a different thread that I know a guy who is paid €80,000 a year as a wage clerk in the ESB, Please show me a wage clerk in the Civil Service who gets anything like that kind of money.

He has been included in the study.

Have you actually read the methodology of the ESRI report?

 

[S.L.F]

Have you actually read the methodology of the ERSI report?

I don't read fiction!

On the off chance I get a chance today can you post a link to it

 

[Sunny]

I don't read fiction!

On the off chance I get a chance today can you post a link to it

Probably better to read and understand something before dismissing its findings!

[broken link removed]

 

[Complainer]

However on the subject of comparing jobs on a like for like basis, can I ask why the ERSI get told there is no way you can compare jobs and yet I didn't hear Unions coming out with that argument during benchmarking.

The short answer is that the benchmarking process was not transparent, so no-one can really argue as to whether it was good or bad.

The long answer is that it appears that the benchmarking process did exactly what the ESRI did not. They looked at the content of the relevant jobs, and took a view accordingly. This is just like the C&B guy (Compensation & Benefits) in my former multi-national employer, who would benchmark salaries against other similar companies/industries, based on job content (not titles or qualifications, as the ESRI used).

 

[Sunny]

The short answer is that the benchmarking process was not transparent, so no-one can really argue as to whether it was good or bad.

The long answer is that it appears that the benchmarking process did exactly what the ESRI did not. They looked at the content of the relevant jobs, and took a view accordingly. This is just like the C&B guy (Compensation & Benefits) in my former multi-national employer, who would benchmark salaries against other similar companies/industries, based on job content (not titles or qualifications, as the ESRI used).

I think we can argue as to whether it was good or bad. Again judging by comments, you should read the methodology as well. It wasn't simply a case of looking at titles and qualifications

 

[Purple]

The short answer is that the benchmarking process was not transparent, so no-one can really argue as to whether it was good or bad.

The long answer is that it appears that the benchmarking process did exactly what the ESRI did not. They looked at the content of the relevant jobs, and took a view accordingly. This is just like the C&B guy (Compensation & Benefits) in my former multi-national employer, who would benchmark salaries against other similar companies/industries, based on job content (not titles or qualifications, as the ESRI used).

If the first part is correct how does the second part follow?

 

[DerKaiser]

From the people I know in the PS all they want is fairness not to be scapegoated into being the bad guys because they are like you and me.

They are a highly educated work force and can see the writing on the wall and really have a problem with the way they are being treated

And it all circles back to this again and again.

How are you being treated?

99% of what I read these days in relation to public sector is about pay rather than performance.

If I say that I think we can't afford to spend €40bn on social welfare and public sector pay, I am implying nothing about the individuals that will be impacted by this.

I was happy to see the dole go to €200pw a couple of years ago because we could afford it and there was inflation.

Now we can't afford it and there's deflation so I believe it should be cut. This is in no way casting aspersions on people on the dole, in fact I believe the average person on the dole now has contributed more to society than would have been the case on average a couple of years ago.

It's the same with the public service. I believe standards have improved over the years.

When you couple the state the country is in with the fact we have in deflation of 6% I don't see how cutting wages levels in line with deflation should be a personal affront to anyone!

 

[Purple]

and it all circles back to this again and again.

How are you being treated?

99% of what i read these days in relation to public sector is about pay rather than performance.

If i say that i think we can't afford to spend €40bn on social welfare and public sector pay, i am implying nothing about the individuals that will be impacted by this.

I was happy to see the dole go to €200pw a couple of years ago because we could afford it and there was inflation.

Now we can't afford it and there's deflation so i believe it should be cut. This is in no way casting aspersions on people on the dole, in fact i believe the average person on the dole now has contributed more to society than would have been the case on average a couple of years ago.

It's the same with the public service. I believe standards have improved over the years.

When you couple the state the country is in with the fact we have in deflation of 6% i don't see how cutting wages levels in line with deflation should be a personal affront to anyone!

+1

 

[DerKaiser]

The short answer is that the benchmarking process was not transparent, so no-one can really argue as to whether it was good or bad.

The long answer is that it appears that the benchmarking process did exactly what the ESRI did not. They looked at the content of the relevant jobs, and took a view accordingly. This is just like the C&B guy (Compensation & Benefits) in my former multi-national employer, who would benchmark salaries against other similar companies/industries, based on job content (not titles or qualifications, as the ESRI used).

The only information I have first hand on benchmarking is a friend in a pensions consultancy who worked on valuing the public sector pension. The orginal unbiased figure they placed on it was deemed to high. Figures were recalculated with a bias towards undervaluing it so that benchmarking would result in pay increases.

 

[Complainer]

I think we can argue as to whether it was good or bad. Again judging by comments, you should read the methodology as well. It wasn't simply a case of looking at titles and qualifications

I did read the methodology. They had no data available to them on job content. The only data available in the database was superficial stuff about title, qualifications, years of experience, gender etc. They have never looked at job content.

The only information I have first hand on benchmarking is a friend in a pensions consultancy who worked on valuing the public sector pension. The orginal unbiased figure they placed on it was deemed to high. Figures were recalculated with a bias towards undervaluing it so that benchmarking would result in pay increases.

Doesn't say much for the ethics of private sector pensions consultancies if they are prepared to frig around with their figures like this?

 

[liaconn]

I could but can't be bothered arguing this topic anymore.

However on the subject of comparing jobs on a like for like basis, can I ask why the ERSI get told there is no way you can compare jobs and yet I didn't hear Unions coming out with that argument during benchmarking.

Well, that argument could work both ways. During benchmarking there was a lot of scoffing from people in the Private Sector on the lines of 'who on earth were teachers compared with' etc. But those same people seem quite happy to accept the ESRI data.

 

[Sunny]

I did read the methodology. They had no data available to them on job content. The only data available in the database was superficial stuff about title, qualifications, years of experience, gender etc. They have never looked at job content.

Thats not true.

They used a propensity score matching approach that allowed them to to look at and give greater emphasis to job characteristics rather than human characteristics.

 

[DerKaiser]

Doesn't say much for the ethics of private sector pensions consultancies if they are prepared to frig around with their figures like this?

It certainly does not, it's absolutely indefensible.

I'm unsure why you included 'private sector' in the desription though. It's almost as if you thought I'd defend them because they're part of the 1.6m non public sector workers?

At the end of the day complainer, you and many like you are revelling in public sector bashing and diverting all reasoned arguements down that channel. It's actually better for you that threads like this become slagging matches as it undermines the valid arguements for public sector pay cuts.

 

[Sunny]

Well, that argument could work both ways. During benchmarking there was a lot of scoffing from people in the Private Sector on the lines of 'who on earth were teachers compared with' etc. But those same people seem quite happy to accept the ESRI data.

I don't get it. I was one of those people who never agreed with benchmarking but it was implemented and we have to live with it. I never wanted a process like this but the social partner geniuses did. Now they want to change the goalposts again.

 

[liaconn]

Thats not true.

They used a propensity score matching approach that allowed them to to look at and give greater emphasis to job characteristics rather than human characteristics.

And that approach came up with the idea that a Guard and a security man should be a direct comparison.

 

[liaconn]

I don't get it. I was one of those people who never agreed with benchmarking but it was implemented and we have to live with it. I never wanted a process like this but the social partner geniuses did. Now they want to change the goalposts again.

I'm just saying that your argument below works both ways.

However on the subject of comparing jobs on a like for like basis, can I ask why the ERSI get told there is no way you can compare jobs and yet I didn't hear Unions coming out with that argument during benchmarking.

 

[S.L.F]

Probably better to read and understand something before dismissing its findings!

[broken link removed]

OK read it!

I see a lot about "like for like" but don't see any methods of comparison, I know for a fact they have made a pigs ear of the soldiers wage because they didn't take into account that soldiers tend to live on site as such.

When you couple the state the country is in with the fact we have in deflation of 6% I don't see how cutting wages levels in line with deflation should be a personal affront to anyone!

But if they are allowed to cut it once what is to stop them coming back time and time again when they think lets save a few million here.

At the stroke of a pen the minister cut average of 7.5% od the PS wage but didn't bother to do it to the PS pensioners which would have saved a good bit more money.

Doesn't say much for the ethics of private sector pensions consultancies if they are prepared to frig around with their figures like this?

This report was geared to making a set result and that is the reason the semi-states were included.

 

[Deiseblue]

And it all circles back to this again and again.

How are you being treated?

99% of what I read these days in relation to public sector is about pay rather than performance.

If I say that I think we can't afford to spend €40bn on social welfare and public sector pay, I am implying nothing about the individuals that will be impacted by this.

I was happy to see the dole go to €200pw a couple of years ago because we could afford it and there was inflation.

Now we can't afford it and there's deflation so I believe it should be cut. This is in no way casting aspersions on people on the dole, in fact I believe the average person on the dole now has contributed more to society than would have been the case on average a couple of years ago.

It's the same with the public service. I believe standards have improved over the years.

When you couple the state the country is in with the fact we have in deflation of 6% I don't see how cutting wages levels in line with deflation should be a personal affront to anyone!

Alan McQuaid , economist with Bloxhams suggests that we will see inflation again in 2010 , if his suggestion proves to be correct should we raise wages in line with the CPI if we deflate them now ?

 

[Sunny]

And that approach came up with the idea that a Guard and a security man should be a direct comparison.

Where in the report is that comparison?