Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Did you read beyond the headline? The first paragraph reads;[broken link removed].
which does not support your claim above. I've tried googling for the study commissioned from Ernst and Young and Dr Tony Murphy of Oxford University mentioned in the article, but I can't find anything. If you do actually find anything which supports your claim, do let us know.The recent wage-setting report has indicated that, despite arguments to the contrary, public service salaries are largely in line with - and in some cases, exceeding - those of the private sector.
Agreed. I was addressing here that many of the misinformed claims about public service salaries were along the lines of 'average salaries' without taking into account the job in question.By the way, if two people are doing the same job equally well their level of qualification is irrelevant.
Did you read beyond the headline? The first paragraph reads;
I agree with your point about blanket comparisons. It is important to compare lie for like jobs. Though allowing 12% for job security, much better pensions and generally better conditions etc seems quite conservative.The main reason for this very different outcome is a study commissioned from Ernst and Young and Dr Tony Murphy of Oxford University. This study concluded that most categories of public servants - based on a national earnings study across all sectors, which pre-dated the last benchmarking award - were being paid more than their private sector equivalents, even without allowing for the enhanced pension benefits provided to public servants.
These latter benefits were quantified - in a separate study - at 12 per cent of pay, a figure which many will find conservative. In a nutshell, the report has blown away any notion that most public servants are poorly paid relative to their private sector counterparts.
TrueLots of people switch between the private and public sectors so not all will have all the years service for a full public sector pension.
It is also worth noting that public servants do not benefit from any increases in the standard OAP, as that is simply deducted from their pension. Give with one hand....My point being that if you are stuck on a slow salary for a number of years in the public sector, and don't have full service the pension might not be all that.
Indeed it does. But without access to the report mentioned, it is impossible to draw any sensible conclusion as to whether McCarthy is drawing a valid conclusion, or is just another right-wing commentator continuing to grind axes and spin agendas. Hardly conclusive evidence to support your broad generalisation there.Then it says;
The main reason for this very different outcome is a study commissioned from Ernst and Young and Dr Tony Murphy of Oxford University. This study concluded that most categories of public servants - based on a national earnings study across all sectors, which pre-dated the last benchmarking award - were being paid more than their private sector equivalents, even without allowing for the enhanced pension benefits provided to public servants.
These latter benefits were quantified - in a separate study - at 12 per cent of pay, a figure which many will find conservative. In a nutshell, the report has blown away any notion that most public servants are poorly paid relative to their private sector counterparts.
Indeed it does. But without access to the report mentioned, it is impossible to draw any sensible conclusion as to whether McCarthy is drawing a valid conclusion, or is just another right-wing commentator continuing to grind axes and spin agendas. Hardly conclusive evidence to support your broad generalisation 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?