Teaching Matters: Last week's report from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) on differences between public and private sector wages was a limited piece of work that annoyed many of my colleagues. In case you missed it amid all the political fallout that has dominated the media recently, the report claimed that wage levels in the public sector far exceed those in the private sector.
The report claims that its findings would seem to have clear implications for the next bench- marking exercise. The press release that accompanied the report went even further and claimed: "Our findings provide no basis for an adjustment to public sector wages on the grounds of attracting graduate entrants," something that was not explicitly stated in the actual report. But perhaps the release provided a clue to the motives behind the report.
My colleagues saw it as little more than a crude attempt to influence public opinion in advance of the next benchmarking exercise. The fact that the ESRI receives a third of its funding from Government, which has a vested interest in the outcome of the benchmarking process, caused further disquiet. In today's more transparent world, perhaps it would have been better if the report and accompanying press release had been published with a declaration of interest.
What got up the noses of my colleagues was that it based its findings exclusively on the starting salaries of workers in both sectors. This is as useful as trying to compare house prices on the basis of first mortgage repayments. Such a comparison can only be made if a lifetime of repayments is studied. Without it, the full picture can never be seen. It's the same with salary comparisons between the public and the private sector. Salary is for life, not just for the first year of employment.
To be fair, the report does acknowledge that it is based on starting salaries. But making consequent claims that salary adjustments are unwarranted on limited research is equally unwarranted.
Comprehensive research conducted for my union, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO), and the other teacher unions by independent consultants BDO Xavier Simpson does show that new teachers start on a salary which is roughly comparable to those in the private sector.
Although I am sure that many of my younger colleagues will not thank me for saying it when they are struggling to get on the property ladder, especially in urban areas, I am not claiming that newly qualified teachers are in straightened circumstances.
But the report for the teacher unions goes on to show clearly that, within a short period of time, gaps begin to open up between teachers and comparable positions in the private sector. It points out that within five years a considerable gap with other sectors begins to open up. This gap continues to grow and expand over time as teachers fall behind their private sector counterparts. It concludes that over a lifetime, teachers earn considerably less than their private sector comparators. This will be submitted to the benchmarking body in support of a salary claim which I believe is well merited. That's my interest declared!
This research identifies reasonably comparable careers based on, among other traits, the qualifications and skills required.
It points out that most teachers remain as classroom teachers throughout their careers and stay on a basic salary scale. Private sector graduates, on the other hand, expect to be promoted on a regular basis. Therefore, the pay of the grades above them (as much as their own grades) must be taken into consideration and factored into recruitment and retention equations.
In the private sector, graduates receive higher salaries further up the career ladder while teachers are on the teacher scale for most if not all of their career. This scale is commonly referred to as the grandparent scale, as many reach that milestone in life by the time they reach the maximum of the scale.
The INTO's research compares teachers against a "basket" of private sector careers and, using results from specialist recruitment consultants, establishes that after five years:
An accountant in the private sector earns 141 per cent of a teacher's salary.
A mechanical engineer in the private sector earns 127 per cent of a teacher's salary.
An account manager in the private sector earns 122 per cent of a teacher's salary.
A HR manager in the private sector earns 115 per cent of a teacher's salary.
These differentials widen when principal teachers are compared with similar jobs in the private sector. There is strong evidence of an emerging recruitment crisis in the employment of primary principal teachers because of depressed earnings relative to the responsibility attaching to the job and their second-level counterparts.
The report also comments on pensions. It states that public sector pensions enjoy parity with public sector wages. This is increasingly rare in the private sector, where pensions are paid on a defined contribution basis or, at best, pegged to price inflation. Instead of implying that this is a privilege and a perk, the ESRI might usefully investigate and expose the exploitation of private sector workers in this area. There is no need to join a race to the bottom when it comes to pensions.
Any study of lifetime earnings provides a solid basis for an upward adjustment in teachers' salaries. Teachers have to live and provide for their families over time. Teaching needs top quality graduates. No one ever went into teaching to get rich, but neither do teachers expect to be "talked down", especially by limited research.
Valerie Monaghan is principal of Scoil Chiarán, Glasnevin, Dublin
