Public sector earnings rise 3.6pc in Q1

How surprising?;s=rollingnews.htm

How does the 258,000 people employed in the public service compare with other countries

I’d imagine some of this could be down to wage scales… ie in your salary goes up by a certain percentage depending on how long you have been in the job.

About 258,000 too many…

I wonder were a lot of managers getting the pay rises in before the anticipated pay freeze.

We have as the OECD pointed out, far too few public servants.

What the OECD did not point out is that uniquely in the western world they are paid 40% in excess of the private sector, excluding their gold plated benefits and working condtions. In the rest of OECD they (public sector) are paid less than private sector.

That been said we have more nurses per capita than anywhere else in the world. And relatively the best paid. But they are angels, aren’t they?

Yeah, as long as you don’t interrupt their routine by being sick at an inconvenient time. Or wanting to ask questions. Like how come you’ve got MRSA when you didn’t have it when you came in?

Other OECD countries like France and Germany have larger numbers of public sector workers because they actually provide services.

That is untrue. The public sector is paid 40% more than the average industrial wage. The AIW is made up of unskilled, or semi-skilled employees. It excludes professionals, trades people, bank or office staff etc. etc. The CSO definition of Industrial workers is below:

Whether you think the public sector is a lazy shower or not, to compare the AIW cohort to skilled workers (teachers, gardai, nurses) is hardly apposite.

To the main point. I imagine the reason for the large jump in public sector pay in Q1 was the fact that the penultimate award of the current pay agreement was paid in March (2.5%).

And there is another 2.5% coming the way of general public servants in September which will be the final part of the previously negotiated pay rises.

in as far as it goes, a lot of the civil service should be against the AIW , although indeed there are highly trained people, there’s a load of untrained also , thus dragging that bar down as well.

also, it’s still a closed shop and status quo ante prevails in most cases.

how is it a closed shop?

recruitment beyond the entry grades is in most cases closed to outside ignore Gardai, Army and teachers because of the specialized training ] . Only in a few token jobs is high level entry allowed , but Civil service most of the Asst Sec, Secgen, PO and Ap jobs are closed entry

Regarding the untrained point you were trying to make, the entry levels are CO, EO and AO. the only one that you can come in on that allows people not to have a degree is CO, and most of the COs that came in during the last 5 - 10 years have a degree, so it’d be a pretty small percentage of people that would be untrained. How high up the grade structure do you think the minimum wage should apply to? At an equivalent level to PO upwards in large private organisations, not many outsiders would be getting the posts anyway, and someone coming in as an AO can easily get AP within 5 years.

Maybe but fact remains you could do 95% of CO (and EO) work with a basic Junior Cert (Ex CS speaking btw know what I’m talking about).

you could say the same of lower level work in most business organisations. The fact remains that most civil service entrants are required to have a third level qualification - therefore they are not untrained

yes they would. Are you in the public service yourself ? Senior people up to and including CEOs change jobs in the private sector all the time.

If their degree is irrelevant to their job (and many, perhaps the vast majority are), they’ve effectively untrained.

Given the obsessive attention to detail and fact-checking that accompanies any post relating to property on this forum, it is a pity that the amateur, foaming at the mouth, rants about the public service are rarely accurate.

Open recruitment up to PO and occasional A/Sec posts exists and is part of the partnership agreeement Towards 2016. I know this as I am on the current panel which is made up of a mix of outsiders and existing civil servants who also applied. The public sector expanded dramatically during the boom because we were so far behind everyone else only Mexico and Korea spent less than us on public services. And yes like any organisation, plenty of fat was added in the good times beacuse the older wiser managers knew that the public service would be the first to suffer in a downturn.

Our public servants are well paid and there are not very many of them. Public services are unlikely to improve if we pay them less and reduce their numbers even further. By the way, most of the increase in numbers during the boom went into health and education. Mainline Departments have kept the same number of civil servants, more or less. So when you are looking for the knife, do you really want fewer teachers, doctors and nurses?

as I said earlier , only a token few of the jobs are open, to show willing.

show me the pay rise reviews… how many people achieved the “exemplary grade” … what percentages achieved the lowest grades in the PMDS ? oh 1% or something … get off your high horse.

meritocracy my bum.