I can only assume that you haven't looked at the CSO report. It is quarterly, and it also requires CEOs/CFOs to give precise information. It may not ask all the same questions as IBEC, but it is far more rigourous (including statutory penalties for non-cooperation) and independent than anything IBEC produce.
Nope, I have looked and it was a poor effort to show that they actually share the same statistical bases and methodology. The key difference is that the CSO ones are quite some way behind once published. And in reality your only reason for rejecting the IBEC report is because of the authors rather than any actual proof that it is biased. It doesn't contradict the CSO reports, it just goes further than simply basic pay levels.
Just as an aside, there was never a problem with the IBEC surveys when they indicated a positive trend during National Wage agreements.
We don't know, because of couse the benchmarking process was confidential. But possibly, the key difference between bechmarking and the ESRI/CSO tsunami is that benchmarking did exactly what I pointed out that the ESRI/CSO did not - it looked at the actual content of the job and came to view on that.
Here's the root of the problem, whether with the media, the ESRI or anything else: we don't know. The frustration for the ESRI and the need to make adjustments is that there is no clear description of roles and tasks. In effect we just don't know what some parts of the Public Service do on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day, etc basis. This makes the comparisson difficult, but that's hardly the fault of the ESRI.
While the benchmarking process was confidential, if there was any clear criteria it would be available to the ESRI and it would be available through an FOI request. The problem is it just doesn't exist, or at least doesn't appear to exist.
However, if benchmarking was so confidential how can you be so sure it did compare like-with-like?
But that is not how they are being used. They are being used here on AAM and in the media at large to fuel the public vs private 'divide and conquer' tactic that the Govt are playing. So don't be surprised when I and others seek to clarify the context and content of these reports every time they are used in evidence.
The media will always use the worst part of a study for a story. It happens all the time (such as the Union stat on Public Sector funding compared to the EU15). It works both ways and it is unfair to only take issue when this technique is used against you.
Just like this morning and the Teacher's union stating "slashing of promotion opportunities" as a "loss" to pay incurred in their profession. They mention nothing of the skew in numbers of higher grades in teaching nor that the cut in promotions was on the basis of a far more reasonable model, i.e. promotion based on performance and merit and not service. The media missed this one.
However, averages are a necessary evil. They aren't just plucked out the air economists always account for variables as best the can. There simply is no other way to present the information.
As for their use here. Well I see enough people with enough cop on around to mostly see through the headlines. Some don't, but it works both ways. Some people are happy to ignore reports that point to a certain trend on the basis of the authors or that it doesn't suit their current argument.