Public Sector Wages; what should they be benchmarked against?


As the gov is the biggest employer by far in the state, any reduction in the wages it pays will have a knock on effect on the price of goods and services in the public sector in order for these products to sell. Consequently as prices need to fall, wages, rents etc will fall there also. End result is a more competitive economy which will be able to export. Instead of the government lagging the general economy it is well placed to lead the economy in this regard.
 
Public servants are not going to pay the price for any lack of competition in the economy, or be the guinea pigs that get squeezed while economists try out their theories.
 
I think that people are wary of keeping wages inflated because living costs are high.

With 20:20 vision no one can argue that our reponse of increasing wages to chase house prices was an inappropriate response that led us to ignore the real issue (lax lending regulations)

In this context anyone who simply accepts that wages should be kept high if living costs are high have really learned nothing from this crisis.

That's not to say I'd set out on an immediate path of benchmarking public servant pay against that in latvia though! But I do think as an entire country we need to regress (in a measured and uniform way if possible) towards a more internationally appropriate norm in both wages and living costs
 
Complainer said:
Public servants are not going to pay the price for any lack of competition in the economy, or be the guinea pigs that get squeezed while economists try out their theories.
Click to expand...

I'm describing what I believe would happen if wages in the PS fell. I never mentioned the PS should pay the price on their own - look at the number of unemployed people who had to pay a far bigger price.

It all in the end comes down to ability to pay. If we want to keep wages in the PS the same we have a choice, either reduce numbers or make Joe/Jane grand-daughter pay
 
Firefly said:
. If we want to keep wages in the PS the same we have a choice, either reduce numbers or make Joe/Jane grand-daughter pay
Click to expand...
It's not that simple - there is still lots of money left on the table in other areas that aren't being hit.
 
OK, so what do you think PS sector wages should be benchmarked against Complainer?
 
Caveat said:
OK, so what do you think PS sector wages should be benchmarked against Complainer?
Click to expand...
Against comparable private sector roles where possible, though there are some roles that either have no comparable private sector role (e.g. policy development, gardai, army) and some roles where the public sector is the dominant player (nursing, fire services) that a comparison to private sector is meaningless.
 

Not so meaningless back in the ATM days of benchmarking though...
 
Interesting question. The answer is nothing.

The first and hopefully, only benchmarking exercise was a stupid idea. All subsequent BMs would also be stupid and would give rise to a series of “adjust up/adjust down” exercises in trying to keep everyone happy.

The government is an employer. What it pays its staff is entirely up it itself. The government has chosen over the last decade to form consensus with unions, who did their job very well, to agree a rate of pay for its employees. Whether or not the private sector get paid more or less is irrelevant. Whether or not the private sector like what the government are paying, notwithstanding that a private sector employee might leave to join the public service, is irrelevant.

The above opinion is based on a truth that people generally refuse to accept. Tax is paid by the public and spent by the government. There is no such thing as taxpayer’s money. It ceases to be your money the second you pay it. It then becomes exchequer money. Try asking for yours back if you don’t believe me.

This reply has taken into account the fact the goverment are paying too much or too little to fantastic, hardworking, lying thieving public service, depending who you're talking to.

M
 

Benchmarking could make sense - but only if used to calibrate the cost of services (public and private) and manufacturing here against that of our major markets, and those of our competitors. If we had done this over the last ten years, we would have avoided the worst excesses of the boom expenditure bubble. What we did instead was to create a 'pyramid scheme' fiscal approach. Where, those that could ( bankers, developers, unions etc) played a high stakes (winner takes all) game - that would inevitably blow the lid off the economy.
The world doesn't owe us a high standard of living - we either compete and prosper, or fail to compete and wither......ugly, brutal perhaps, but the truth....
 
Sunny said:
Because they don't get the same benefits.......
Click to expand...

What? That's the whole point of the debate that's been going on for the past 18 months. The benefits in the public sector are far greater than those in the private sector which defeats the point of having bench marking.
 
censuspro said:
The benefits in the public sector are far greater than those in the private sector
Click to expand...

censuspro, will you please research your information before coming out with sweeping statements.

Pre 1995 public servants get very little if any benefits from prsi apart from their pension on retirement. Post 1995 employees pay full rate prsi and therefore are entitled to all benefits available, just like anybody else in any sector.

Typical Irish Independant crap as usual, unresearched, unqualified, unbelievable!
 
censuspro said:
What? That's the whole point of the debate that's been going on for the past 18 months. The benefits in the public sector are far greater than those in the private sector which defeats the point of having bench marking.
Click to expand...

RonanC is right. Research the whole PRSI topic. And I say that as someone who has been openly critical of many aspects of the public sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register