Next Benchmarking round

R

rmelly

Guest
I heard a Trade Union official complaining about Benchmarking (again) this morning in advance of the next National Wage Agreement, and I was wondering if round 2 (and indeed future rounds of Benchmarking if they happen) had/have the authority (or terms of reference or whatever they call it) to reduce public sector pay?

I thought the outcome was based on an analysis/comparison of pay (and certain conditions e.g. pension entitlements) in both sectors. Surely ruling out a pay reduction fundamentally undermines the process, as it prevents taking account of cases where public sector pay exceeds the private sector equivalent? So rather than being able to reduce, leave as is or increase, all they can do is leave as is, or increase. They are in effect starting with the assumption that the public sector are at best on the same level as the equivalent private sector - how accurate an assumption is this - where are they getting the data/information to make this decision? Surely the benchmarking process should be determining this?

In effect the public sector has already won, as the worst that can happen is no pay rises (beyond the wage agreements).
 
benchmarking's purpose is to routinely check public and private sector pay to ensure any pay increases in excess of the national pay agreements in the private sector are also given to the public sector. If no one in the private sector gets more than the national agreement, then no one in the public sector does. No one should get less than the national wage agreement, so there should never be a justification for a public sector wage cut.

benchmarking works to compare public sector jobs with similar jobs (level of responsibility etc) in the private sector.

They equate the public sector jobs with the lowest quartile (ie the 25% lowest paid doing similar jobs) and then discount the public sector workers 12% because they have a pension.

ie public sector workers get 12% less than the lowest quarter in the private sector.

no worker would take a paycut to stay in the same job!

(BTW i am a public sector worker if you hadn't guessed)
 
NiallA said:
No one should get less than the national wage agreement, so there should never be a justification for a public sector wage cut.
Click to expand...
What should happen in an ideal world and what does happen when international trading conditions and the state of the domestic economy have to be taken into account are two different things. My wages in 2007 were about 35% lower than 2006. I’m not complaining; I still have a good wage but next month or in six months time I might have no income at all.
NiallA said:
(BTW i am a public sector worker if you hadn't guessed)
Click to expand...
I had my suspicions :D
 
NiallA said:
no worker would take a paycut to stay in the same job!
Click to expand...

But many private sector workers are subject to pay freezes in times of economic uncertainty, which in effect equate to pay cuts when inflation is taken into account. One of my previous employers had a pay freeze for most staff for 2 or 3 years (apparently) at one point, and the staff weren't queuing up to leave.
 
Xylinx in City West all took pay cuts rather than shed jobs a few years back.
 
rmelly said:
But many private sector workers are subject to pay freezes in times of economic uncertainty, which in effect equate to pay cuts when inflation is taken into account. One of my previous employers had a pay freeze for most staff for 2 or 3 years (apparently) at one point, and the staff weren't queuing up to leave.
Click to expand...


Point I was trying to make, T16 is acceptable, but cannot swallow benchmarking on top of this.

Governments benchmarking was wrong , wrong , wrong.
 
I agree the Benchmarking process has passed its sell-by date. When you think about it, benchmarking was the solution to the unrest amongst teachers, nurses, etc. when it was first muted. I never agreed with the concept that all public sector jobs can be compared with private sector jobs en masse. In fact public sector jobs cannot be compared to public sector jobs even!

For example, people of the same grade in the civil service have huge variance in their duties but are regarded as doing similar jobs when it comes to pay. A Higher executive Officer could be managing a stand-alone office with 30 staff while his colleague in the next office could be working alone, with no management worries or skills, and getting the same pay.
 
Last edited:
I am a public servant and did not agree with the BM process either. As far as I could see in BM 1 the higher the admin grade the higher the increase. I do work that I know in other areas have a grade 7 or better again grade 8 doing it.
 
Welfarite said:
I agree the Benchmarking process has passed its sell-by date. When you think about it, benchmarking was the solution to the unrest amongst teachers, nurses, etc. when it was first muted. I nnever agreed with the concept that all public sector jobs can be compared with private sector jobs em masse. In fact public sector jobs cannot be compared to public sector jobs even!

For example, people of the same grade in the civil service have huge variance in their duties but are regarded as doing similar jobs when it comes to pay. A Higher executive Officer could be managing a stand-alone office with 30 staff while his colleague in the next office could be working alone, with no management worries or skills, and getting the same pay.
Click to expand...

becky said:
I am a public servant and did not agree with the BM process either. As far as I could see in BM 1 the higher the admin grade the higher the increase. I do work that I know in other areas have a grade 7 or better again grade 8 doing it.
Click to expand...
Good points both. There's hope for us yet! :D
 
They equate the public sector jobs with the lowest quartile (ie the 25% lowest paid doing similar jobs) and then discount the public sector workers 12% because they have a pension.

ie public sector workers get 12% less than the lowest quarter in the private sector.
Click to expand...

I understand that the 12% less comes from an actuarial assessment of pension and other conditions of employment.

Curious as to where the comparison with worst paid 25% equivalents come from? What is the rationale behind it?
 
csirl said:
I understand that the 12% less comes from an actuarial assessment of pension and other conditions of employment.

Curious as to where the comparison with worst paid 25% equivalents come from? What is the rationale behind it?
Click to expand...

I think it's an attempt to take into account non-financial factors such as better job security, shorter hours, more holidays and generally better terms and conditions in the public sector.
 
Curious as to where the comparison with worst paid 25% equivalents come from?
Click to expand...

This isn't true as far as I know, they decided to use the the weighted average of private sector rates despite a push by unions for a reference point between the median and upper quartile of private sector rates.

The lower 25% quartile was used for ministers and higher civil servants, it's actually generous since the argument for the comparison they use to CEOs is weak.

The 12% is for a pension consideration only - to get it to this lowish figure they excluded private sector employees without pension, and even so I doubt that paying 12% extra on my contribution would actually get me an index linked pension.
 
How much of inflation relates to wages, as opposed to oil prices and interest rates and other features outside the control of the government?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top