Civil/Public Service Pay Scale Late Entrants

[WolfeTone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

That's not unique to the Public Sector.

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.