Public Service : "Level E"...how much?

I just saw a job advertised in the public service. No salary was mentioned but it did say "Level E". Does anyone know what pay range this corresponds to?

I think the E grade is the lowest CC grade there is so I would not imagine the salary is anything to write home about.

The payscale for Level E is €66,302 - €81,480 rising to €86,494 by long service increments

EllaC said:

The payscale for Level E is €66,302 - €81,480 rising to €86,494 by long service increments

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm new to public service terminalogy...what does "long service increments" mean?

The early increments would be applied annually but typically, the final increments are applied after, say each additional three years' service.

In the scale given, the normal "max" is 81k. Moving from 66k to 81k might be by way of 7 annual increments of 2k per year. The additional LSIs are awared to reflect a minimum period on the 81k max. I suspect in would be paid in two increments over six years. In other words, you would need be on the 81k level for 3 years before it became 84k and a further 3 years before it became 87k.

The move through the incremental scale should, of course, be viewed in parallel with normal grade-specific rises which occur annually.

pinky bear - if what the poster after u logged is right

i would think The payscale for Level E is €66,302 - €81,480 is very good

defo something to even mail home about !

I was mixing it up with health sector grades - E is the lowest - A being the highest.. Mistake on my behalf..

Thanks for the feedback. Excuse my ignorance with this. Does this mean that if I took the job I must start at €66k, or might I start on some other increment up to €81k depending on experience and suitability?

Probably on 66k if no previous public sector experience.

Staples said:

Probably on 66k if no previous public sector experience.

Click to expand...

What if I have no public service experience but am making significantly more than €66k in the private sector? Is this considered?

Unlikely. You could ask though. Generally speaking, that flexibility doesn't exist. If others in that grade got to hear about it (and you can be sure they would), they'd justifiably seek to be treated equally.

If you are going this route, go on the basis on the additional experience/responsibility you possess - not on the amount that some anonymous third party was prepared to pay you.

Staples said:

If others in that grade got to hear about it (and you can be sure they would), they'd justifiably seek to be treated equally.

Click to expand...

Why would they be justified if Sqonk brought skills to the job that others didn't possess?

Staples said:

If you are going this route, go on the basis on the additional experience/responsibility you possess - not on the amount that some anonymous third party was prepared to pay you.

Click to expand...

If the third party was named (for example on a CV) and the pay rate they gave was based on open market conditions would that not be a better reason to give higher pay than the number of years someone else’s ass occupied a chair?
I’m not saying you are incorrect Staples but that doesn’t make it right.

In my experience of public sector organisations people are not always hired at the start of a payscale, sometimes near the top of it. I wonder is this done to attract new staff by offering more money. But puts them lower in the picking order when promptions for a higher grade come up, as length of time on a grade would be a factor for promotions. Some times new hires can't move up a grade for a specified time period. I presume so they are not immediately in competition with existing staff.

Purple said:

Why would they be justified if Sqonk brought skills to the job that others didn't possess?.

Click to expand...

It depends on the value attributed to these skills and the process by which this value was arrived at. It there's a transparent process to which all grade occupants can aspire (e.g. holder of certain qualifications entitled to move to point 6), then fine - no one's being treated differently. Everyone's free to acquire these qualifications if they want to move to point 6. My point is that unless it's easy to attach some sort of tangible value Sqonk's skills, any favourable treatment will be difficult to justify.

Purple said:

If the third party was named (for example on a CV) and the pay rate they gave was based on open market conditions would that not be a better reason to give higher pay than the number of years someone else’s ass occupied a chair?

Click to expand...

Probably, but who's to say whether the pay was based on market conditions? Industry itself would have a tough time agreeing on that.

For most public sector positions, the requirements, in terms of skills/attributes, are clearly specified in advance as is the remuneration on offer. People can choose to apply if they like. If particular experience/qualifications can raaise one's starting point, this is usually made explicit at the outset. Whatever else might be said about the public service, the recruitment process is (these days) generally very open and transparent.

BTW, the days in which promotions were given by virtue of ass-time spent in chairs is (thankfully) over.

Staples said:

My point is that unless it's easy to attach some sort of tangible value Sqonk's skills, any favourable treatment will be difficult to justify.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your detailed explanations Staples..I appreciate it. I think I finally get your point (I hope!). If I go for the job and have quantifiable and relevant qualifications (e.g. postgraduate degree) then I may not have to start at the lowest rung; if I just have some non-quantifiable experience in industry where I'm getting paid more, then that in itself may not be enough to get off the first rung.