There are strong structural differences in employment between the public and private sector - a fact that is recognised by some, and ignored by others.
The structural differences relate to the types of occupation, education standards, and length of service - all of which affect wage levels. The length of service of those in the public sector tends to be longer - by five years for men and three years for women - than those on the private sector, which affects aggregate wage levels. There is a lower ratio of foreign nationals in the public sector compared to the private sector, and foreign nationals - UK&NI, EU15 and EU15-27 - are paid less in Ireland than Irish nationals.
There is one other factor that brings itself to bear on public sector wages levels, and that is the fact that women are less likely to be discriminated against in the public sector as they are in the private sector. Gender difference in pay occurs in all occupations and professions, and although it still exists in the public sector, the gap is not as wide as it is in the private sector where gender pay discrimination works as a “saving” over the public sector.
In a previous post, I talked about how wages do not determine class, because class is a social relation, not a category. However, an analysis of wages can give us an indication of those social relations, and how they play out within our society. The NES is one such example of this, with an analysis of wages giving us a view of educational standards, and the position of women, in the public sector workforce.
Money is a form of social power. “It is one of our fundamental principles of social organization. Ownership is represented through monetary claims, and the exchange of those claims in the financial markets amounts to the social construction of ownership.” (Henwood, 1997, 11). There is very little which happens in a modern capitalist economy such as Ireland’s that doesn’t involve, or require, money. Access to it, and the amount one has, affects your level of social power.
So, while wages don’t determine your class, wages are the means by which the majority of people attain money, and the amount of money you have affects your level of social power. And the more money you have - through wages or bonuses or speculation or business - the more likely you are to be able to affect national government policy. The less money you have, the less likely you are to be able to affect government policy.
The following facts are of little concern to those demanding draconian cuts in social services - just as the facts about the fault lines in Ireland’s economy were of little concern to them - or the fault lines in the bank bailout in August 2008 were of little concern to them.
For those who are interested, though, here they are.
Distribution of Occupations
The NEC 2007 report contains analysis with makes it very clear that there are structural differences in employment between the public and private sector.
- 11.6% of employees in the private sector were managers, compared with 3.0% in the public sector.
- 46.4% of all public sector workers consisted of professional or associate professional and technical occupations, compared with 13.9% in the private sector.
- 8.1% of public sector workers fell into the sales and other occupations (mainly manual labour) category, compared with 24.5% of private sector workers. (p.10)
There are almost three times as many professionals working in the public sector as in the private sector. Not surprising, as the public sector is, well, a not-for-profit service sector, employing teachers, social workers, doctors, nurses, occupational therapists, osteopaths, radiographers, surgeons, obstetricians, gynecologists, dermatologists, welfare workers, community workers and counsellors, among others.
Education
With almost half of the public sector comprised of professionals and associate professionals, it is not surprising that there is a higher number of graduates within the public sector than in the private sector. This reveals itself in the figures regarding the breakdown of educational attainment in the private and public sectors.
The difference that education makes to one’s employment opportunities and, by extension, wage levels, is revealed by the figures regarding the median hourly rates in 2007 by educational attainment - the median being the point at which half of the sample group are below, and half above.
The above figures do NOT mean that everyone with a third-level education is getting €23.29 or thereabouts - no more than they mean that the average hourly rate for those with a Jnr. Cert. or lower is €14.35. However, they do show that educational attainment can have an influence on your wage level. These variables need to be factored in when trying to analyse wage levels in the public sector, as 46% of all employees are professionals / associate professionals and technicals - in other words, they are the types of occupations for which a third level qualification is required.
Length of Service
The amount of years you have with your employer affects your wages. On average, civil servants have three years more service than people in the private sector. The level of service is longer for men - on average 14 years - while for women it is ten years.
In general terms, the spread of wages by age group pans out as such below. These figures are for the entire workforce, not just public sector. The point remains, though, that wages levels are affected by length of service.
Women in the Workforce
In general, women in full-time employment are paid less than men. The difference widens with service. However, the rate of difference is lower in the public sector than in the private sector.
The NEC 2007 provides us with a snapshot of wages and employment at a quantitative rather than qualitative level. And as Tom Geraghty pointed out on Morning Ireland on Thursday last, the main differences between the public and private sector occur at the qualitative level. However, it is possible to observe some of these difference in motion when we look at wages as a “way in” to the structural differences in employment and occupation between the two sectors.
The current focus on the public sector, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the structural fault lines within the Irish economy which led to the collapse of the banking system and the largest single increase in unemployment we have ever seen.
Irish banks did not collapse because the median of women’s pay in the public sector in October 2007 was 93.9% of that of their male counterparts, while in the private sector, the difference was 79.3%.
Ireland’s tax laws and investment strategies - the ones which lacerated our economy - remain, essentially, in place. The vested interests which have destroyed our economy are the ones dictating policy today. It’s incredible, but that’s the situation.
The calls for a cull of 17,500 in the Irish civil service won’t help the economy one bit while the banks and speculators remain insulated from the cuts in public services by a €60 billion guarantee of public money, and while the disastrous investment strategies they pursued - the empty houses and apartments - remain protected by our taxes.
And it is absolutely bizarre to read comments on various Irish blogs from people who have absolutely no access to that bailout, who will be forced to work longer for less, alongside a reduced education and health system, and yet think that their lives will be protected by the people who are using them, and their children, as toilet paper - something to wipe the shit off their shoes with.
Oh well. Here’s another economic plan, on a par with this one as far as dealing with structural problems.
Enjoy.
“There is one other factor that brings itself to bear on public sector wages levels, and that is the fact that women are less likely to be discriminated against in the public sector as they are in the private sector.”
An alternative interpretation of this ‘fact’ Conor is that the public sector is a form of sheltered employment that provides levels of wages, sick leave, maternity leave and other flexible arrangements for females that would be simply unaffordable in the private sector.
Seems as robust an argument to me in light of the ‘facts’ as your unsupported accusation that the private sector is full of atavistic employers stuck in the dark ages about the productivity of female employees. Even the Nation’s Girlfriends would agree I’m sure (great video btw).
“An alternative interpretation of this ‘fact’ Conor is that the public sector is a form of sheltered employment that provides levels of wages, sick leave, maternity leave and other flexible arrangements for females that would be simply unaffordable in the private sector.”
Well you obviously know fuck-all about employment rights in Ireland, Gerard.
Come back amárach when you’ve actually read something about Labour law.
Jesus Gerard, I’d never thought about it that way before. So ‘females’ deserve to be treated unequally because the market deems that the only affordable solution? Equity in can only be achieved in sheltered circumstances of the fattened public service?
I have on more question since your in the mood to educate us?
How do men like you get to have sex with ‘Women’?
Two comments and two ad hominem attacks - I’m flattered chaps. Takes me back to my student debating days, ah yes, bliss it was …
Excuse me? Your first comment showed a complete ignorance of the actual situation of Irish employment law. If you believe this brings you back to your “student debating days” it’s probably because that’s your level of knowledge of these things.
“the public sector is a form of sheltered employment that provides levels of wages, sick leave, maternity leave and other flexible arrangements for females that would be simply unaffordable in the private sector.”
I mean, do you charge for that? I’m serious. Is this the type of junior cert level of analysis that you give to your clients?
What attack?
Seriously. How? Is it the latin? I bet its the latin isn’t it?
Gerald, you maintain that the ‘private sector’ cannot afford to provide levels of wages, sick leave, maternity leave and other flexible arrangements for females that you say are differentiated in the public sector. I do not understand your values-base. This society cannot afford not to provide sick leave, maternity leave, and flexible working arrangements for women if it is interested in sustaining itself. What purpose business and economic policy if it does not serve human needs.
Conor/Donal - has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, you might get a bit more discussion going if you didn’t go into attack mode any time you got a comment you disagreed with?
great ireland
Personally I could care less what the public sector gets paid, I do however object to the fact that by virtue of the sector of employment I am in, I am denied access to a defined benefit pension, which is available to the public sector in a flavour that is even sweeter than the few remaining private sector DB pension schemes. This is a serious issue and I wholeheartedly agree with Eddie Hobbes appellation of “pension apartheid”. I care not how the inequality is addressed, but I want to see it addressed.
The issue of pensions is one that pre-dates the current crisis. The argument being put forward now is that by cutting public sector wages and services, we’ll be able to somehow address this current crisis. And as part of that argument, the Irish media is putting out that “like for like” the public sector is better paid than the private sector. The point of this post is to show that there is no “like for like” comparison between the public and private sector. This fact is acknowledged by every professional who publishes under the umbrella of the ESRI, the benchmarking body, and the CSO itself. The fact that there are structural differences between the public and private sector is non-contentious in Irish academic discourse. Yet, in two areas of public life, Irish media and political pugilism, the fallacy that they are “like for like” is hammered home all the time. It is wrong.
As far as pensions goes, and the tax breaks and investment strategies developed by various Irish right-wing administrations, TASC has done some sterling work on the issue of pensions and Ireland. If you haven’t read it yet, I suggest you do.
And as a private sector worker myself, one without a pension, the issue of pensions is fairly acute in my mind as well. However, unlike you, I see no distinction between the way the inequality is addressed and the inequality itself. In fact, intellectually, I find it bizarre that you have set up such a schizophrenic distinction.
Thiftcriminals response is interesting in that he would prefer to take away a benefit from workers, the majority of whom are on average wages simply because the ’sector’ he works in has chosen to deny him (for the purpose of increasing their own earnings, of course) rather than thinking of challenging the real inequality, between the majority of the working population in the public and private sector on middle and low incomes, and the 0.1% of the population who enjoy enormous tax breaks through pension schemes designed to ‘incentize’ them into keeping their loot in the country.
It’s a simple dichotomy of problem and solution, the problem is singular, a point if you will, the solution may take an infinite number of forms, hence a space rather than a point. A subset of the infinite solution space can be cost functioned as “good”. I fail to see what the issue is with treating problem and solution as two different things unless one has already decided that there is only one unique solution, which I have not.
@Donagh: I did not specify a solution. It could easily be rectified by providing me with an equally good pension, rather than the negative solution you assumed (incorrectly) that I alluded to. You suffer from the common assumption that, as a private sector worker, I am filthy rich and can easilly provide for my self at retirement as opposed to ending up with a stale rolo and empty chewing gum wrapper because, hey, that’s the market (as I would be told by the DC pension company).
It is not a simple dichotomy at all. Your desire for a solution, regardless of what it is or where it comes from, is one that makes no distinction, for example, between a Bertie Ahern short-term stroke, and a more detailed, long-term, structural response. In both cases, a solution is given, but you’re being F**ked by Bertie and Fianna Fáil in the first.
“I care not how the inequality is addressed, but I want to see it addressed.”
Fair enough. But to me, all I see is you setting yourself up to be taken for a fool.
And as far as analysis goes, your stance is the very negation of analysis. In fact, you’re rejecting analysis in favour of a solution - which, to me, is pretty bizarre.
what that tells me, Thriftcriminal, is that there’s no point me giving you an analysis such as the one above, because you plainly don’t want one. All you want is a “solution.” No analysis, just solutions. I don’t see how that is in any way desirable or helpful, but if that’s what you want, there are plenty of websites and blogs that can help you out there. But if that’s what you want, I’m afraid you’ve hit a dead end with me. Try politics.ie or something.
BY the way, thriftcriminal, nobody here works in the public sector. We are all private sector workers.
Hmm, I think I am being thoroughly misunderstood here, and subject to a fair amount of agression as a consequence, something I have seen more of lately than before on this blog. I have no issue with analysis, but the final goal should (presumably) be a solution, otherwise it is just so much hot air or naval gazing. To put it in simple terms I am saying that we are “here” and we would like to be “there”. Once a thought out route for realising this is arranged I’m satisfied. I fail to see what is difficult about that. You are kind of like the flip side of the coin to Gerard these days, assuming it will all continue as before, just fighting over what colour it will be. See ya so.
Written before the other last two comments but stuck in moderation.
I’m not trying to rude Thriftcriminal, but what is simple about what you just said? I can’t understand it and I think I’m a reasonably intelligent person. However, going back to your previous comment, you mention that you wholeheartedly agree with Eddie Hobbes appellation of “pension apartheid”. Checking out his blog on the subject I see he starts his post with this:
From this it is clear to see which side his bread is buttered on and Hobbs is being cavalier with the facts in the rest of his post as well. To take one example, in arguing that public sector pensions should be reduced he says:
Looking over at Jim Stewart’s post on Pension reform he says:
That is, the problems with pensions in the private sector has more to do with how the market is structured then it has to do with how public sector pensions are organised.
Thanks for taking my #8 comment on board lads. Worked a treat.
I think part of the reason why think this whole thing can cause quite short and even bad-tempered responses is down to frustration at how sucessful the government and banks have been at switching the focus from the almost unbelievable heist that has gone on with the guarantee and soon with NAMA to this public/private straw man.
The mainstream media especially RTE have had a huge hand in this. It’s an easy one to stoke. And there are valid and passionate points to be made on both sides. Bug bears and mindsets that are entrenched and which the boom could only ever paper over.
The part that leaves me, a grown adult leaving pissy little teenage comments in response to points like gerards is the feeling that while we have this well rehersed punch-up over public sector pay and pensions (I mention my pension levy, you mention my holidays, swing your partner and dosey do) somewhere underneath the cloud of fists and boots bugs bunny is slipping out the bottom and having a laugh eating a carrot we’re all paying for.
If I’m honest thats why I get pissy. This almost pathological debate about who shares the pain, how much pain….pass the nipple-clamps….is one we’ve all been put to like children to keep us occupied while the adults go spend our college money in the bookies.
@ pavement trauma.
Why would I take advice from an anonymous right-winger like you? It’s a bit like Ciaran Cannon leaving a comment.
Actually, not really. Ciaran Cannon would probably use his name instead of hiding behind a persona.
Oh well, I’ve always wondered if a comment counts if it’s in relation to someone who, well, doesn’t exist. Can you talk with a fictional character?
And what happens when the fictional character gets snotty? That’s a bit of a strange one, isn’t it?
Even more weird than that, when an anonymous little right-wing commentator who has created his own little fictional name gets all moralistic. Stomping his anonymous little feet, typing his anonymous little comments, so confident of the validity of his anonymous little right-wing opinions that he dare not assign his real name to them?
This is all very meta.
One last time.
I guess it depends on why you write a blog.
If it is to persuade people of your views through discussion or bring about an exchange that might tease out and illuminate an issue then I would suggest encouraging comments is pretty essential, even comments you disagree with. Dismantling someone’s ridiculous position through a reasoned argument is far more effective that Yah Boo Sucks. All too often the aggressive tone and nature of the comments made on Dublin Opinion cuts the discussion dead. Remember the Desmond Fennell comments? http://dublinopinion.com/2007/09/10/john-waters-and-the-addiction-to-the-reactionaries-type-blues/
If you want to blast out in messianic megaphone style to only the true believers, then comments don’t really matter. You can replace the square box where readers can enter text at the end of each page with a button that says ‘I wholeheartedly agree with the above opinion’. Good luck with that.