Private sector - moving to public sector - pros & cons

J

JobHunt

Guest
Long-time lurker, first-time poster, love the site.

I have an interview next week for a position with a State agency. When I started my career 20+ years ago, I'd never have foreseen that I'd give serious consideration to a public sector role, but as age and family commitments have grown, the job security and pension rights have become increasingly important. It would involve a substantial cut in salary, but I'm not too worried about this - my mortgage is very low (by today's FTB standards at any rate) and I've 2 fully loaded SSIA accounts coming on stream next year to cushion me for the future.

They are advertising the position with salary starting at the bottom of the Assistant Principal scale. Is this something that they would have any discretion over, i.e. is there any point in me haggling to start off at a higher level.

Has anyone else made this kind of move? How did you find the adjustment?

How do you motivate your team in the public sector, without the traditional private sector tools of salary increases & bonuses to dish out? What is the public sector attitude to people-management? Is it still authoritarian-style?

Comments & advice welcome from all.
 
JobHunt said:
my mortgage is very low
Click to expand...
Do you mean that the outstanding balance is low or that the repayments are low - or both? How much is outstanding relative to your current income and what you might expect to earn in the public sector (e.g. twice your current annual gross etc.) and how much are the repayments as a percentage of your net income? If you want to post specific figures then that would do too.
I've 2 fully loaded SSIA accounts coming on stream next year to cushion me for the future.
Click to expand...
Can you explain this? Do you mean you and your spouse or something? After all it is illegal for an individual to have more than one SSIA.
 
The outstanding mortgage is < €50k, which is less than the gross starting salary in the new position. And yes, the SSIA's are for myself & herself.
 
OK - thanks for the clarifications. A mortgage of one year's annual salary would certainly seem manageable. I'm a bit confused about your motivations in going for a public sector job. Job security and pension are imporant issues alright but what about the work itself? Are you attracted to that or just willing to do whatever's needed to secure job security and pension benefits? Are you sure (in relation to your other query) that the post offers a DB pension? I thought that many new public service hires were offered defined contribution pensions?
 
the job security and pension rights have become increasingly important
Click to expand...
.
If these are your reasons it sounds like you consider a move to the public sector could be the right choice for you.
Has anyone else made this kind of move? How did you find the adjustment?
Click to expand...
Yes and it was quite difficult in the beginning. People who join after school or immediately after third level are way ahead when it comes to understanding the culture. Best advice is to watch, watch.... and wait. Hind sight is great!

Couldn't advise on whether to haggle or not. Maybe another AAM poster could advise on this and on P.S.team motivation. There is certainly a move towards increasing value for money and management skills, so that someone coming in from the private sector would often be employed for that very reason. And for that reason too could be treated with a degree of suspicion or even envy. There could be a lot of job satisfaction once you've found your way around "the system". Coming from the private sector could be to your advantage depending on what special skills you have to offer.

According to all the pundits, including KM, there is nothing to beat a public sector pension. The price for this is the freedom of independence. AVC's can be made and some (? all) P.S. employees now pay full PRSI which entitles them to a Contributory non means-tested pension. Best of luck.
 
I agree with the last poster's comments on a new openness in public sector to what were formerly commercial approaches - for good or bad is not yet obvious.

As far as your pension and security are concerned my advice is to ask appropriate questions at interview on whether changes are planned in these areas. Many perks taken for granted in the past may no longer be automatic for new recruits so it would be wise to have confirmation that there are no plans afoot to restrict or remove these benefits, given your reasons for moving job and the salary-cut it will entail. Good luck with it!
 
The work isn't hugely different to what I do today, though it would be directed a very different target audience.

In addition to the job security & pension, I'm trying to get a better work-life balance. I've had my fill of early morning management meetings and late-night conference calls to the US. The idea of working a steady 7-hour day (as I understand in the norm in this particular agency) is hugely attractive to me, to allow me to spend more time with family.

Many thanks for all the responses so far, particularly the first-hand experiences from Sherib. Further comments responses (particularly on the current pension offerings and management style/approaches in the public service) are very welcome.
 
For those who began in the Civil Service before April 95, the pension is based on salary on retirement and length of service. If you have 40 years service, you get the maximum pension i.e. half your salary. If you have 20 years service on retirement, you get half of half, etc. If you have less than five years service you DO NOT get a pension but are refunded contributions made.

For those who entered after 1995 and therore paying full PRSI, the pension is the same BUT minus twice the state contributory pension that you would be entiled to by virtue of paying full PRSI.

It's all intended to ensure that all Civil Servants, regardless of whether they started pre 95 or after, have the same benefits in real terms.

Your pension, therfore, will depend on how long you stay in the CS and what your salary will be on retrement.

In terms of culture, depending on the agency, you can expect a civilised 9 to 5.30/6.00 regime. There may be periods when an extra effort is required and as an Assistant principal, you are unlikely to receive overtime. You won't have the stresses of late night conference calls but other pressures may stress you in other ways (depending on the nature of the role you're applying for). It can be a frustrating place to work at times.

It would be wrong, however, to think you'll be moving into some form of semi-retirement.
 
I'd heartily echo everything Sherib has said - I'm one of those who's been 'in there' more or less since graduation, and when I get frustrated with the culture (absence of performance measurement/incentivisation, meaningful promotional prospects) I remind myself of the perks in terms of security/pension rights/work-life balance. I could probably have earned a lot more in the private sector (or at least so I flatter myself!), but I'd probably have had a lot more stress and seen a lot less of my (5) kids growing up.

It is certainly - for many - a 'gentler', less driven work environment. For better and for worse, motivation is largely a matter of self-motivation/pride-in-one's-work. That inevitably produces extremes at both ends of the scale; I can look around me and observe colleagues of equivalent rank and salary working twice as much or half as much as myself (...more of the latter, alas!) Of course, working lots and working 'smart' aren't the same thing. But I've noticed that the harder-working people tend also to be those that most genuinely enjoy their work - so what's job satisfaction worth?

The winds of change are gently rustling through the edifice but — as Marie has commented — not always to positive effect. 'Creeping managerialism'/'the invasion of the beancounters' are the usual battlecries of the old guard ...and unfortunately (at least in the education sector, the only one I've experience of) - they're not always wrong! I would modestly venture that the relentless commodification of education/health and other areas traditionally (or largely) under the remit of the 'civil service' is one type of desirable reform; unfortunately, it seems to be the only one that interests the present administration (and, in fairness, most of its predecessors since the 80s). I think that - alongside certain positive changes - it will produce all sorts of undesirable/unintended(?) consequences...

To come back to the life-choice question you originally raised, my own hunch is that it could be a positive move for you, given what you've said so far about your own personal experience, circumstances and priorities. If it turns out otherwise, you could presumably chuck it in and go back to the private sector? There are 8 increments on the [broken link removed], while you ponder your options...

[P.S. I see there's a 'higher' AP scale there - could you haggle about that, at interview? Good luck!]
 
Hi Magoo - Thanks for the feedback.

"the pension is the same BUT minus twice the state contributory pension that you would be entiled to by virtue of paying full PRSI. "

Any idea of the logic behind the deduction of TWICE the state pension? I can understand the logic of deducting the value of the state pension, but why twice the value?

"but other pressures may stress you in other ways (depending on the nature of the role you're applying for). It can be a frustrating place to work at times."

If you have a few minutes to expand on this point, I'd be very grateful. Any insignts into the people-management culture would be welcome too.
 

I'm a little confused, how are the benefits the same if they take away TWICE the state contributory pension from the same pension.
 
Yeah this is a bit of a bone of contention and as a pre-95er, I must admit to not pursuing my lack of understanding in the matter.

I think it has something to do with a maximum pension being based on half of income. If you got say €150 on a contributory state pension, you would have needed to earn €300 in the CS to get the equivalent. So by discounting only €150, the person earning €300 would be at a disadvantage. I don't claim to understand the rationale so apologies if this doesn't make complete sense.

In response to Job Hunt's latest post, I'm referring to things like staff (in particular, motivation and interst of staff). The HR policies in the CS have a bit of a way to go in terms of matching skills with positions and this can impact both on the abiity and willingness of people to perform effectively.

In addition, while much of the work can be very intersting, a lot of it is very mundane and soul-less. You can also sometimes feel that you're nothing more than a hired hand to be moved about at the behest of those in charge.

You'll definitely benefit in terms of work/life balance but if you also put a value on engaing in meaningful work, you may find yourself shortchanged. Enthusiasm can be the first feeling to make an early exit.
 
The logic for a deduction of TWICE the State pension from actual salary in order to arrive at a Pensionable Salary figure is as follows:

- The State Social welfare pension is currently circa €180 p.w (€9360 p.a.)
- The overall pension objective is that you receive a pension of 1/2 actual salary (plus of course a tax free lump sum of 150% of Salary)
- Therefore based on a target of 1/2, the State Pension of €9360 means that the first €18,720 of salary (2 x €9360) is looked after.
-Therefore in the civil service pension scheme they need only provide a pension based on the salary in excess of €18,720.
- Therefore Pensionable Salary is actual salary less twice the State Social welfare pension
- So when you add the State Social Welfare pension to the Civil service pension, you end up with a total pension of 1/2 x Salary

Hope this explains the logic.
 

That makes more sense, I had interpreted the original post as suggesting the two times deduction was from the pension not the salary used to calculate the pension.
 
"They are advertising the position with salary starting at the bottom of the Assistant Principal scale. Is this something that they would have any discretion over, i.e. is there any point in me haggling to start off at a higher level."
Click to expand...
Yes, you should be able to start a few increments up the scale.

Do you know where you will be based in a few years time? Is the Agency due to be decentralised?

It may have been said earlier but new recruits can not get a pension until they are 65. (Actually they can but it will be actuarially reduced.)
 

Does that apply to most civil service jobs....i mean for some of them the range can be advertised as 25k to 50k with maybe 10 points on the scale....is that generally open to negotiation so that you can start maybe on the second or third point depending on what experience and benefits you are offering them?
 
Most civil servants join straight from school or college so there is no scope for negotiation. However for more senior and professional posts where the candidates’ experience could differ significantly it is common for people not to join at the bottom of the scale. The Civil Service had to allow this because they were not able to recruit suitable candidates otherwise. In some cases I know of people that were put on the scale at the point just below their existing salary. (This can cause annoyance because new people are coming in at a higher salary than existing staff who have longer and more relevant experience!)

I think it is unlikely that anybody would be allowed join at the top of the salary scale no matter what their experience or current salary.
 
Yep, that often arises in the education sector, where candidates are likely to have accumulated significant experience either on temporary contract or outside the public sector.
Allen said:
I think it is unlikely that anybody would be allowed join at the top of the salary scale no matter what their experience or current salary.
Click to expand...
It's not unheard of for senior administrative positions - I can think of a few examples in the 3rd-level sector, but won't quote them here since they're probably irrelevant.
 

so joining at the second or third point of a scale might be applicable if you are experienced....i presume its the HR people in the civil service branch in question who decide that?

Second, who decides if you are on say for example the Standard Scale or the higher scale....taking Admin Officer grade as example there is a large difference, especially at the lower end of the scale where it is nearly 30%
[broken link removed]
 
All advertised jobs for the Civil Service are 99% of the time offered on Standardised Scales. It is rare that anyone joining any of the general service grands will start on anything other than their age-point, unless they have specialist skills or are being brought in on a short-term contract for a specific job.

Higher Scales in the Civil Service are reserved in the main only for those who are existing civil servants who have been through the entire incremental listing and then move on to the higher scale. The public service has more lee-way in this instance (Higher Scales) and can negotiate individual contracts.

There are basically 2 ways to get moved in the Civil Service on to the higher scale - (a) move through all the increments, spending some time at the top of the list - and (b) you have moved through a number of increments and are recommended to the higher scale by your supervisor as you are doing work of higher quality or have been assigned greater responsibility.

In terms of (a) and (b) listed above however, remember there is a cap on the number of those serving at 'Higher' level in each Department so just because you are doing work of higher value - doesn't mean anyway you will get onto the higher scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register