OT Post Split from: ESRI Public-Private Sector Pay Gap in Ireland study.

[Askar]

What methodology did partnership process use to give all the increases to public servants in the last decade or so? I understand it was a secret process, but surely, if private sector are taking cuts this methodology should also work in reverse? No substantial efficiencies were achieved for all those increases.

I presume the different reports give different results because they use different methodologies. However, the one constant is that they all show a public sector premium.

Jim O'Leary economist resigned from the partnership process and I recall reading some articles in IT by him where he referred to some comparative studies showing public sector premium over private sector in place for some time. His methodology allowed for better qualifications of the average public sector employee. I also recall listening to one of the bearded brethren discussing the secretive partnership process and explaining that someone like a teacher would be treated as a person in managerial position having 26 odd people reporting to them.

However, all of this is beside the point. We are a bankrupt country and cannot afford the public sector bill. Furthermore, I fail to understand why benchmarking does not compare like with like i.e. compare our public sector rates with those of other OECD countries. For example, the hospital consultant in the Dutch Health system (which recently came first in an international survey) earning €80k compared to the €250k we pay his equivalent in our poorer performning health system.

 

[Complainer]

I'm not a huge fan of the benchmarking process, but there are a lot of inaccuracies in this post;

if private sector are taking cuts this methodology should also work in reverse?

There may be some sense in this point. However, if this is to work successfully, what we need is an ongoing, firm, guaranteed process, i.e. a permanent ongoing link between public sector and private sector salaries. We can (and I'm sure we will) have a huge debate about the nature of the link and the relative weightings, but we can't just pick and choose our moments for applying benchmarking. If it is going to work, it needs to be consistent.

No substantial efficiencies were achieved for all those increases.

Wrong - there were very solid 'Performance Verification Groups' (headed up by the cream of the private sector, including Gillian Bowler and Vivienne Jupp iirc) that signed off on the effeciences provided for those increases.

I also recall listening to one of the bearded brethren discussing the secretive partnership process and explaining that someone like a teacher would be treated as a person in managerial position having 26 odd people reporting to them.

This is just nonsense, any union official who tried this on would be hammered by the reporter and pilloried by the press. Link, or it didn't happen.

We are a bankrupt country and cannot afford the public sector bill.

It depends. It depends how many of the tax breaks that we still leave in place for property developers and landlords. It depends how many of the tax breaks we still leave in place for private medical clinics. It depends how many €billions we choose to hand over to bank bondholders instead of spending on the public services that it was intended for.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why benchmarking does not compare like with like i.e. compare our public sector rates with those of other OECD countries. For example, the hospital consultant in the Dutch Health system (which recently came first in an international survey) earning €80k compared to the €250k we pay his equivalent in our poorer performning health system.

Probably because the people involved don't live those other OECD countries. I'm not defending consultant salaries, but ordinary public sector workers don't have the option of flitting country - they have families, roots and commitments here.