Think about it, it’d be crazy if there wasn’t some flexibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.Actually it's pretty cheap to run big competitions and create large panels. Vast majority of people offered jobs take them.
That's not unique to the Public Sector.Whether it gets the right candidates is another matter.......
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.
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.
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.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?