Public service pay scale

[Purple]

My issue with pay scales is that increments are not seen by staff and unions as pay rises when in effect, that is what they are. I've no argument with a rise following a probationary period but anything else should be performance based and based on a companies/states ability to pay them.

That's very hard to do without linking staff performance to the department/ bosses performance and that is even harder to do.

 

[thedaddyman]

That's very hard to do without linking staff performance to the department/ bosses performance and that is even harder to do.

Not necessarily. Take Bus Eireann as an example, if they firstly had the money to pay rises, and by that I mean at least breaking even and have a signed off budget to cover the costs for the next year and then have a robust SLA in place with the Dept of Transport around adhering to timetables, clean buses, number of customer complaints etc then you can put a structure in place around it. if they don't have the money and are failing to deliver, then no-one gets anything.

The bigger problem is that there is no real incentive for senior management to create and sign up to such a process since it would/could also cover themselves. Their incentive is not to break the mould since if they do, they run the risk of being out of pocket themselves

 

[Deiseblue]

My issue with pay scales is that increments are not seen by staff and unions as pay rises when in effect, that is what they are. I've no argument with a rise following a probationary period but anything else should be performance based and based on a companies/states ability to pay them.

Most importantly the employer does not consider increments as pay rises but rather service related emoluments which do not figure , from an IR point of view, in pay negotiations.
As far as I'm aware such increments in the Public service are subject to satisfactory performance, perhaps someone in the PS would verify this or not !

 

[Gerry Canning]

My issue with pay scales is that increments are not seen by staff and unions as pay rises when in effect, that is what they are. I've no argument with a rise following a probationary period but anything else should be performance based and based on a companies/states ability to pay them.

I wonder if performance based works , didn,t our wrecking ball Bankers , performance base things ?

Purple ,
Problem is { open market rate} dissolves into very poor incomes etc.

 

[thedaddyman]

I wonder if performance based works , didn,t our wrecking ball Bankers , performance base things ?

.

A large chunk of the problem with bankers was short term bonuses and sales commissions, not pay rises. They were deliberately incentivized to get deals in in the short term and not with the long term interest of the bank or customer in mind

 

[Purple]

Purple ,
Problem is { open market rate} dissolves into very poor incomes etc.

Sweet mother of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately why do people continue to trot out that rubbish?!
If people aren't getting paid enough they go and work somewhere else. If a sector isn't getting enough applicants then they aren't paying enough for the job as it stands. They can either make the job more attractive or pay more. We are not surfs or indentured servants; we can go and work wherever we choose.
We have very high rates of welfare and a very high minimum wage. They act as a floor in the labour market as things stand.
The best paid jobs out there are based on market rates. If you want to get paid more then make yourself more valuable. If you want to do a particular job but the pay isn't high enough for you then do a different job.

 

[Delboy]

As far as I'm aware such increments in the Public service are subject to satisfactory performance, perhaps someone in the PS would verify this or not !

Nope, they're paid as a matter of course. Your performance doesn't come into play in anything other than a re-grade application or when going for promotion.
Individual performance doesn't even come into question when pay rises are dished out...you get the same as everyone else in your grade.

 

[Purple]

Most importantly the employer does not consider increments as pay rises but rather service related emoluments which do not figure , from an IR point of view, in pay negotiations.

I love the way Unions take words and give them a different or selective meaning.
emoluments; a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office. Wages in other words or, to be completely clear about it (more Union speak), it's pay. Emoluments are pay. They are pay that the Unionised management doesn't take into account hen talking about pay to the Unions.

 

[Deiseblue]

I'm afraid you are wrong - Increments are subject to satisfactory performance in the preceding year.
According to a PS management acquaintances if you receive a 1 in the performance management development system review then no increment.

 

[Purple]

I'm afraid you are wrong - Increments are subject to satisfactory performance in the preceding year.
According to a PS management acquaintances if you receive a 1 or 2 in the performance management development system review then no increment.

According to that right-wing rag the Irish Times only 0.1 of 1% of Civil Servants didn't get their incremental pay rise in 2011. That's 30 out of 30,000. two thirds of them got a rating of 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale. Source.
Deise, the King had no clothes on.

 

[Deiseblue]

A large chunk of the problem with bankers was short term bonuses and sales commissions, not pay rises. They were deliberately incentivized to get deals in in the short term and not with the long term interest of the bank or customer in mind

The way pay for performance worked in Bank of Ireland was that employees were offered a contract with a base salary that was less than the Union negotiated incremental salary system.
You were then advised that dependant on performance a substantial bonus could be yours at year end which during the good years led to riotous celebrations on the day with many claiming to have doubled their salaries.
The unfortunate corollary of this was that morals & ethics simply went out the window & were replaced by buccaneering risk taking .
The area in which I worked dealt with high worth customers & when the recession hit the losses were devastating, an area that once had upwards of 200 employees now has less that 20 , obviously the rest were either deployed or availed of voluntary redundancy .
Pay for performance , in my experience , was an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Purple]

The way pay for performance worked in Bank of Ireland was that employees were offered a contract with a base salary that was less than the Union negotiated incremental salary system.
You were then advised that dependant on performance a substantial bonus could be yours at year end which during the good years led to riotous celebrations on the day with many claiming to have doubled their salaries.
The unfortunate corollary of this was that morals & ethics simply went out the window & were replaced by buccaneering risk taking .
The area in which I worked dealt with high worth customers & when the recession hit the losses were devastating, an area that once had upwards of 200 employees now has less that 20 , obviously the rest were either deployed or availed of voluntary redundancy .
Pay for performance , in my experience , was an unmitigated disaster.

Good point. The question "What is being measured?" had to be asked before it can be determined if people are performing.

 

[Gerry Canning]

Firefly .

I have been unemployed and on a low wage in my time .
I have also been subject in earlier years, to much higher income taxes than we see now.

{fleeced} as against what ?
And what relevance is that to Public Service pay scales ?

From what I understand , most Public Service people are neither overpaid or over compensated .
I have no doubt a better pay scale system could be enacted , but is the present system so bad ?.

thedaddyman.
{performance based on a companies ability to pay}
Sounds fair and indeed would be fair, if companies took very long views , reality is that companies don,t take long views , indeed maybe they shouldn,t , take the long view.
Public Servants have run from underpaid whilst the boom was on , to what appears overpaid now that the boom is bust .
I would bet that over a long time frame things balance out.

 

[thedaddyman]

The way pay for performance worked in Bank of Ireland was that employees were offered a contract with a base salary that was less than the Union negotiated incremental salary system.
You were then advised that dependant on performance a substantial bonus could be yours at year end which during the good years led to riotous celebrations on the day with many claiming to have doubled their salaries.
The unfortunate corollary of this was that morals & ethics simply went out the window & were replaced by buccaneering risk taking .
The area in which I worked dealt with high worth customers & when the recession hit the losses were devastating, an area that once had upwards of 200 employees now has less that 20 , obviously the rest were either deployed or availed of voluntary redundancy .
Pay for performance , in my experience , was an unmitigated disaster.

I absolutely agree but the issue here was that pay for performance was based on bonuses and commission, not on payrises. I recall siting in an office in a bank watching a bunch of property lenders heading out one Friday evening after doing a major deal. I wonder in hindsight how much that cost the bank and ultimately us.

And whilst the private sector bankers were going out celebrating, the public sector bankers in the Central Bank sat back, did little or nothing and still got their increments and partnership payrises.

Bankers bonuses has little or nothing to do with public sector pay rises. There needs to be an incentive for public sector workers to deliver better services and for incompetence and inefficiencies not to be rewarded. Guaranteed increments don't provide that incentive, all they do is reward doing the minimum to survive.

 

[Deiseblue]

I'm sorry but as I have pointed out increments are not guaranteed , they are based on staff reviews under the PDMS system & subject to satisfactory performance in the preceding year.
I know that relatively few fail to achieve the required grade which reflects the calibre of our public servants & perhaps goes a long way to see why official surveys have shown that 87% of the public surveyed state that they think Public Services mostly meet or exceed expectations.

 

[Ceist Beag]

I'm sorry but as I have pointed out increments are not guaranteed , they are based on staff reviews under the PDMS system & subject to satisfactory performance in the preceding year.
I know that relatively few fail to achieve the required grade which reflects the calibre of our public servants & perhaps goes a long way to see why official surveys have shown that 87% of the public surveyed state that they think Public Services mostly meet or exceed expectations.

Deise I presume that your tongue is firmly in your cheek there - either that or your head is somewhere else! 99.9% achieving increments is as close to guaranteed as you will ever get.
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of those employed in the public sector have regular dealings with members of the public (i.e. teachers, nurses, gardai, librarians, etc.)? Also, as Purple said, what is being measured in order to know whether any of these are performing to expectations? All any of those surveys show is that front line public sector workers are perceived to be doing their job. There is absolutely no way members of the public would have any clue how these workers are performing against targets/expectations as we have no clue what those targets/expectations might be.

 

[Purple]

Deise I presume that your tongue is firmly in your cheek there - either that or your head is somewhere else! 99.9% achieving increments is as close to guaranteed as you will ever get.
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of those employed in the public sector have regular dealings with members of the public (i.e. teachers, nurses, gardai, librarians, etc.)? Also, as Purple said, what is being measured in order to know whether any of these are performing to expectations? All any of those surveys show is that front line public sector workers are perceived to be doing their job. There is absolutely no way members of the public would have any clue how these workers are performing against targets/expectations as we have no clue what those targets/expectations might be.

Poor old Deise has me on his ignore list (yes, that's a thing) as my posts upset him. If you want him to see my post linking to the details of who gets increments you'll have to quote it.

 

[Deiseblue]

Ceist Beag , can you can provide me with an up to date report showing that 99.9 % of those who were to receive increments actually received them after the PDMS review?
You should be aware that the PDMS system changed in 2012 , now only those receiving a 3 or above receive increments.
Prior to that & contrary to generally accepted HR practice the Dept deemed that only those who got an abysmal 1 in their review didn't get an increment!
And yes I believe we are very lucky in having high calibre Public Servants

 

[Delboy]

I'm afraid you are wrong - Increments are subject to satisfactory performance in the preceding year.
According to a PS management acquaintances if you receive a 1 in the performance management development system review then no increment.

No reviews in the PS that I've ever seen or heard of. Doesn't happen
Maybe in the CS but sure we know the fix that they are...wasn't it close to 100% got a mark high enough to ensure there was no issues?

edit - yes, I see the link above. 99.9% got a good review. Even Saddam Hussein couldn't achieve those type of election results

 

[Leper]

OK! Guys, let's do away with payscales in the Public Service and have the public servants negotiate their pay rate individually (with line managers who were once on my rate of pay) say every six months. Secondly, let's re-introduce another monthly assessment process. Then let's introduce a strict per cent fail rate (some contributors here are hung up on this). We will have a system of lower management grades (who themselves are on low payscales) clogging up the system with such assessments and making enemies (or friends) along the way.

Now, I'm thinking of a Line Manager calling me for assessment. "Right, Lep. I have to give you a "1," it's your turn for a kick in the behind, you see; so take it for the team as ya know, I've got to look good in my assessment procedure. The increment ain't too much anyhow and with our tax laws, you won't be losing too much." Brilliant!- Lep is busting his butt to make others look good. So, for my next assessment, I do as little as possible along with the other team members and inform the Line Manager to get his act together or he/she will have a team of disgruntled players who are sick of making low management look good. Nothing like shooting ourselves in the foot, as usual.