Unions

Still the public service it provides is necessary and requires oversight/subsidy in the public sector.

Hmm... you see, i don't like government based companies. Relying on a single organisation to run a necessary service is too dodgy in my views, especially with the An Post debacle going on. Government Monopolies tend to be a bad way to go, and tend to cost the taxpayer too much in the long run.

I'd prefer to see these services released to public companies, with the view to making them profitable and efficient. At the moment, even without the An Post debacle, post was extremely unrealiable. Sure it got to its destination but how long would it take? Anything from 1 day to three weeks. Thats a hell of a time difference.
(this is based on experience, since i control invoicing & credit control for the company i work for). Along with always increasing tariffs on stamps.

So there we go. Lose the government backed companies, and we might see these services becoming worth using rather than having no other option.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
Hmm... you see, i don't like government based companies. Relying on a single organisation to run a necessary service is too dodgy in my views, especially with the An Post debacle going on. Government Monopolies tend to be a bad way to go, and tend to cost the taxpayer too much in the long run.

I'd prefer to see these services released to public companies, with the view to making them profitable and efficient. At the moment, even without the An Post debacle, post was extremely unrealiable. Sure it got to its destination but how long would it take? Anything from 1 day to three weeks. Thats a hell of a time difference.
(this is based on experience, since i control invoicing & credit control for the company i work for). Along with always increasing tariffs on stamps.

So there we go. Lose the government backed companies, and we might see these services becoming worth using rather than having no other option.

K but your assuming that a for profit company is going to be a)profitable, b) efficient c) pass on savings to the consumer d)act in the best interest of the public.
If there are examples where privatizing postal processing/delivery is all of those things then I'd be happy to hear about them in another thread.
...

K but your assuming that a for profit company is going to be a)profitable, b) efficient c) pass on savings to the consumer d)act in the best interest of the public.

A) Its has to be or it fails to survive. If it fails, then another will take its place.
Efficient? It has to be in order to make money. If it fails to be efficient a competitor will take away its market share.
C) In order to create consumer loyalty, it will need to offer something its competitiors can't. Usually this will involve both lower prices and better service,
D) Well, An Post at the moment is failing to do that, so how worse can it be?

This falls somewhat into the Union issue. If this wasn't a State backed company, the Union wouldn't have so much leeway, in that if they screwed up in their demands, the business would likely fail. Also a non-state entity would be less likely to bow to their demands if unreasonable.

This thread started off as being in regards to Unions and their affects on both the business in question (An Post) and its affect on external businesses. A non-state sponsored company would likely provide a better service overall, and restrict the unions demands to those of normal work practices.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
A) Its has to be or it fails to survive. If it fails, then another will take its place.
Efficient? It has to be in order to make money. If it fails to be efficient a competitor will take away its market share.
C) In order to create consumer loyalty, it will need to offer something its competitiors can't. Usually this will involve both lower prices and better service,
D) Well, An Post at the moment is failing to do that, so how worse can it be?


This thread started off as being in regards to Unions and their affects on both the business in question (An Post) and its affect on external businesses. A non-state sponsored company would likely provide a better service overall, and restrict the unions demands to those of normal work practices.

But is there an example of another postal service in the world that has managed to privatize, be profitable, efficient, lower cost/better service, acted in the public interest?

I have no idea. But Irish State companies, don't really have a record for this though. Could be an Irish circumstance, although as far as i'm aware, British State companies have the same problems...

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
I have no idea. But Irish State companies, don't really have a record for this though. Could be an Irish circumstance, although as far as i'm aware, British State companies have the same problems...

So do Irish and British private companies and British companies that took on the public service sector in particular.
Railtrack springs to mind.

Sparks

klaz, how do you propose to handle issues like "social bus routes"? Do you think that every person in Ireland who wanted a phone would have gotten one if Telecom Eireann hadn't had a defined social mandate to provide a telephony service to all for an equal price? Do you think that the experiences in the UK with privitisation were some form of abberation?

The fact is, some things work better in the public sector. It's not a condemnation of the private sector philosophy, and there's no reason to choose one or the other as the sole model - it's a case of horses for courses.

Moriarty

There are a number of semi-state companys in Ireland that turn very nice profits. Just because a company is run by the government doesn't defacto mean it will run poorly. As we have seen to great effect with eircom, handing critical infrastructure over to private hands is far from the answer to all problems.

Sand

klaz, how do you propose to handle issues like "social bus routes"? Do you think that every person in Ireland who wanted a phone would have gotten one if Telecom Eireann hadn't had a defined social mandate to provide a telephony service to all for an equal price? Do you think that the experiences in the UK with privitisation were some form of abberation?

The fact is, some things work better in the public sector. It's not a condemnation of the private sector philosophy, and there's no reason to choose one or the other as the sole model - it's a case of horses for courses.

Ive been lurking on this thread for a bit and youve been probably been getting exasperated at having to remind everyone that unions dont give two fiddlers about the company or anyone else - only what specificially their members get out of any deal - and that this is a necessary attitude in an adversarial system.

This is fine - unions have a monopoly on labour, and like any monopoly they expolit their influence to distort the market to their benefit, providing a bad service at an inflated price whilst crushing any competition which might endanger their monopoly. Thats a result of allowing a monopoly to exist - the question then is whether such a monopoly should be allowed to exist when there is a commitment to an open, free market. We certainly dont view monopolies to be good for the average citizen, and you freely admit this monopoly isnt good for the average citizen either and doesnt even attempt to be. This is the point where unions are less about protecting workers and become about exploiting their strenth to the detriment of everyone else including the general public - this is especially undermines the argument for semi state companies in that they are supposed to serve the public interest.

As such there is no requirement to respect union picket lines - after all theyre only operating in their interests, not ours. If the management sack every single one of the strikers and replace them with non-union staff we should not be bothered so long as the post runs - again theyre operating purely in their interest, not ours. On the other hand we should be pushing for privatisation and the breakup of powerful unions as this is in our interest, and feck the unions and their families - what do we care, they dont care about us?

However, you wonder if telephones would have reached everyone without a social mandate to have them provided - simply put, yes they would be, at a price that justified their provision - this is not anymore scandalous than the current situation. As it is, people in Dublin ( high population density) are subsidising the phone services for the most remote regions of the country - under the logic of the unions why the hell are we doing this, we dont give two fiddlers about the country as a whole, only what we get out of it. The social model in this case is no better or worse than the private model - the private model is more efficient and is fairer individually, and the social model subsidises the more backward regions.

Its a curious mix of philosophy - appealing to social conscience when defending state companies, then defending the narrow private interest of the unions as being natural and necessary.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
This is the point where unions are less about protecting workers and become about exploiting their strenth to the detriment of everyone else including the general public

Except that that's the exception rather than the rule.

If the management sack every single one of the strikers and replace them with non-union staff we should not be bothered so long as the post runs - again theyre operating purely in their interest, not ours.

You do know there is no strike, yes? And that the workers didn't down tools, but were suspended? So that the reason you have no post isn't the union, but management?

On the other hand we should be pushing for privatisation and the breakup of powerful unions as this is in our interest, and feck the unions and their families - what do we care, they dont care about us?

Sound reasoning, with one caveat - you need to define "us", paleface

However, you wonder if telephones would have reached everyone without a social mandate to have them provided - simply put, yes they would be, at a price that justified their provision - this is not anymore scandalous than the current situation. As it is, people in Dublin ( high population density) are subsidising the phone services for the most remote regions of the country

It's not as onerous as all that, and it does mean that the rural areas aren't discriminated against. Which is a rather fundamental tenet of our society - that one group not be discriminated. That's why the hell we're doing this.

Its a curious mix of philosophy - appealing to social conscience when defending state companies, then defending the narrow private interest of the unions as being natural and necessary.

Well, leaving aside the first observation that the private/public sector argument is a wholly seperate one from the union/no union question, there's the fact that my statements on unions are not my philosophy, but simply an observation of how things work in reality. And frankly, I would have thought that social conscience would back both public sector companies in appropriate areas (mostly the management of national-level infrastructure), and the unions in labour relations (because they comprise the majority of the workforce).

You do know there is no strike, yes? And that the workers didn't down tools, but were suspended? So that the reason you have no post isn't the union, but management?

Sparks, theres no official strike going on. There was an unofficial walkout of staff. Amounts to near the same thing. But you're right, we should stop refering ti it as a strike.

klaz, how do you propose to handle issues like "social bus routes"? Do you think that every person in Ireland who wanted a phone would have gotten one if Telecom Eireann hadn't had a defined social mandate to provide a telephony service to all for an equal price? Do you think that the experiences in the UK with privitisation were some form of abberation?

The only reason why Ireland is slowly entering the broadband age, is because Eircom was forced into providing it. They would have continued fleecing people with their ISDN's otherwise. Same goes with the mobile phones, and their tariffs. As i see it, Eircom no longer being a state company has provided the consumer with alot more benefits than before.

As for Social bus routes, i don't see why other businesses couldn't do any better. I could be wrong.

There are a number of semi-state companys in Ireland that turn very nice profits.

True. But for the most part any company totally state owned doesn't turn over a profit. Semi-state companies have indeed produced some nice turnovers, however, they're not going to get bailed out of trouble by the government if things go wrong.

Well, leaving aside the first observation that the private/public sector argument is a wholly seperate one from the union/no union question, there's the fact that my statements on unions are not my philosophy, but simply an observation of how things work in reality.

here we have to agree to disagree. Your workings of Unions isn't the way i see them. And the affects Unions have everywhere, are what i see.

And frankly, I would have thought that social conscience would back both public sector companies in appropriate areas (mostly the management of national-level infrastructure), and the unions in labour relations (because they comprise the majority of the workforce).

As you've pointed out, Social conscience goes out the window, when your job is at risk. Unions tend to cause that risk.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
As for Social bus routes, i don't see why other businesses couldn't do any better. I could be wrong.

Because their mandate would be to turn a profit, not provide public transport.

But for the most part any company totally state owned doesn't turn over a profit.

Because that is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to provide a service in the public interest.

Semi-state companies have indeed produced some nice turnovers, however, they're not going to get bailed out of trouble by the government if things go wrong.

I can't speak for semi-state companies but private companies do get bailed out when they fail.

As you've pointed out, Social conscience goes out the window, when your job is at risk. Unions tend to cause that risk.

Unions can cause that risk. The majority of examples of corporations failing lately (internationally anyway) has either been because of recession or malfeasance/mismanagement.

Because their mandate would be to turn a profit, not provide public transport.

I don't see anything wrong with that. At the moment Public transport is a bit of a joke. I'd like to see buses that actually came on time. Private transport might, just might improve things.

Because that is not it's purpose. It's purpose is to provide a service in the public interest.

Well, i suppose its doing that. But i pay sufficient charges for transport around the city of Cork. Seeing my taxes being used to pay off its turnover deficits is a bit much for me though, especially since these charges (bus & train tickets)are going up all the time.

I can't speak for semi-state companies but private companies do get bailed out when they fail.

Only in extreme circumstances where the Government decides that the loss of labour is too much, or if they figure it needs just a short helping hand. Its by no means a common practice.

Unions can cause that risk. The majority of examples of corporations failing lately (internationally anyway) has either been because of recession or malfeasance/mismanagement.

Oh i agree. When i mention Unions, they're just one risk to businesses. There's loads of others. But at this moment in time, its the Unions that have the limelight.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
I don't see anything wrong with that. At the moment Public transport is a bit of a joke. I'd like to see buses that actually came on time. Private transport might, just might improve things.

But that has alot of factors involved that might or might not be solved by privatizing. I have yet to see a great example of a private company providing good, cheap public transport for all.
There also might be other solutions to the transport problem in Ireland. A competant government might be a start.

Well, i suppose its doing that. But i pay sufficient charges for transport around the city of Cork.

As I asked before, is there an example of a private company providing good and cheap public transport for all.
I know there are examples of good and cheap public transport that aren't private in other European countries...and IMHO Bus Eirann (spelling) suits me just fine. Citylink sucks.

Seeing my taxes being used to pay off its turnover deficits is a bit much for me though, especially since these charges (bus & train tickets)are going up all the time.

Fine, but maybe calling for a proven Transport Minister is the first step.

Sovtek, I understand what you're saying, and i will definetly give it some further thought.

A competant government might be a start.

Well, I doubt that'll happen any time soon. (personal opinion, before that starts anymore side threads)

Sparks

Originally posted by klaz
[Only in extreme circumstances where the Government decides that the loss of labour is too much, or if they figure it needs just a short helping hand. Its by no means a common practice.

In other words, where a service is deemed so useful to the state that it's worth bailing out? Like, say, telephony, postal services, bus or rail or airline transport companies?

sceptre

Originally posted by klaz
Private transport might, just might improve things.

How?

"Might" is not a good enough reason.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
Sovtek, I understand what you're saying, and i will definetly give it some further thought.

Fair enough.

Well, I doubt that'll happen any time soon. (personal opinion, before that starts anymore side threads)

Me either....but I can dream (but I can't vote ).

"Might" is not a good enough reason.

It isn't? Cause we're talking abt something that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps you could tell me why it wouldn't?

sceptre

Originally posted by klaz
It isn't? Cause we're talking abt something that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps you could tell me why it wouldn't?

Sure, it's perfectly simple. You've pretty much said that privatising state-owned companies is inherently good. In particular you've said that privatising transport companies is good because "Private transport might, just might improve things". I'm saying that in order to convince any of us that privatising any particular company (in this case the buses in particular), saying that it "might" improve things just isn't good enough to convince any of us.

While I'm obviously not looking for figures, I think demonstrating at least that privatising this one particular company will produce tangiable benefits for both the State and the people who use the service would be rather necessary before assuming that anyone's OK with doing so on the basis of a "might" (and let's be fair, saying that the buses might run on time if they were privatised is a little vague). Fundamentally it's not a good enough reason. It smells of the old management (and government) tactic of shaking things up by splitting up anything that's big and combining any collection of small things on the basis that at least something is being done.

I'm not completely anti-privatisation by the way. I am totally against Tory-style selling off under the presumption that a free market will act as a panacea though - because all recent historical evidence would indicate that this is not so, not as long as there's any barrier to entry in the marketplace. While any regulations or startup costs exist, there's a barrier to entry in the marketplace. The regulations are things we can't do without as long as we maintain any standards of public service or personal safety, the startup costs are obviously not going to disappear.

So while I'd quite like an open discussion on privatisation in general, let's just start with the buses. If there's a precise tangiable benefit or series of tangiable benefits without a loss in service to the users and also a direct associated tangiable benefit to the State, let's hear it. I may even agree with you, either from the start or at the end.

"Might" is not a good enough reason though. That's pure "we must do something, this is something, let's do this" talk. I can't agree with "might", no sirree.

Sand

Except that that's the exception rather than the rule.

Its only the exception in the private sector - there a union cannot be too powerful as its greatest "WMD" with which to threaten management cannot wreak the havoc that a strike in a monopolised public service can. If UPS goes on strike, who really cares outside of UPS - DHL pick up the slack. If An Post go on strike the government is called in. When a union can not only threaten its employers, but the entire country and its government then it has crossed the line from protecting its members interests to exploiting its strenth to the detriment of society - and the government has a role in protecting society from monopolies abusing their strenth to the detriment of society.

You do know there is no strike, yes? And that the workers didn't down tools, but were suspended? So that the reason you have no post isn't the union, but management?

Didnt the workers down tools? The trouble is over the unions refusal to do their job with the tools theyre provided because these tools are too efficient and mean the overtime that theyre NOT entitled to would no longer be the norm. The managements action in response has been fairly predictable in the face of that Id have thought. The reason I dont have post is the union, theyre the ones refusing to work with better equipment which will increase the efficiency of the post service ( to my and the general publics benefit ) but they, as you say, dont care about me or the general public. And I dont care about them or their precarious debt - its not my problem so long as the post comes.

Sound reasoning, with one caveat - you need to define "us", paleface

Were the ones they dont care about - the general public that the An Post is supposed to be serving.

It's not as onerous as all that, and it does mean that the rural areas aren't discriminated against. Which is a rather fundamental tenet of our society - that one group not be discriminated. That's why the hell we're doing this.

But there is discrimination isnt there? Because someone chooses to live in a remote part of the country and enjoys the low property prices, scenery and reputedly more sedate pace of life Ive got to pay more than I should. For them to enjoy the same services I do at the same price I do, which is less than they should be paying. Isnt this discrimination - they enjoy benefits I do not, and what tradeoffs they should be making - i.e. an understandably higher cost of services in a more remote area - I make for them. I lose out both times dont I? Not that Im saying living in the country is undeniably better than living in the city but they each have the pros and cons....and those living in the countryside are being insulated from paying the real and fair costs of their decision to live in the country. Living in a densely populated area you accept that its going to cost more to rent or buy a place to live, living in sparsely populated area you should accept that its going to cost more for services.

Of course you dont have to. You can argue social conscience should motivate us to suffer for our fellow citizen but our fellow citizen doesnt give two craps for us - it doesnt put food on his table after all or pay his mortgage. I accept that, perhaps we need more union delegates running the country, to get rid of this social conscience clap trap and get down to brass tacks - whats in it for us?

Well, leaving aside the first observation that the private/public sector argument is a wholly seperate one from the union/no union question, there's the fact that my statements on unions are not my philosophy, but simply an observation of how things work in reality. And frankly, I would have thought that social conscience would back both public sector companies in appropriate areas (mostly the management of national-level infrastructure), and the unions in labour relations (because they comprise the majority of the workforce).

I think theyre quite linked and the unions recognise it too - unions are far more powerful in the public sector, and they heartily resist privatisation, under the exscuse that it will be bad for the customer but as you accept they dont give two ****s about us - it wont be bad for the customer ( more on that later ) it will be bad for them. Im all in favour of privatisation of the majority of public companies for the great benefit that it will finally smash unions excessive power over the infrastructure on which our nations economy relies.

And social conscience needs to be reciprocal - If were subsidising an inefficient service which is badly managed and badly staffed by a bunch of chancers all out to milk us dry like the suckers we are to pay for their mortgages on houses we cant afford, and put food on the table for children, meaning that bit less we can afford to spend on our children, then we bloody well should be able to demand that they dont bite the hand that feeds them. They should do their jobs with the tools theyre given and be done with it.

On the other hand, if theyre operating in the real world when they think only of their mortgages and children then we should too - otherwise were being duped by on of the greatest lies in history, that government owned companies are somehow operating in our interest when theyre clearly not.

But that has alot of factors involved that might or might not be solved by privatizing. I have yet to see a great example of a private company providing good, cheap public transport for all.

Try the private bus company I use to get in from County Kildare to Dublin every weekday, its operating in direct competition with a subsidised CIE on this route and it provides a far, far, far superiour service - clean buses - and I mean clean, friendly staff, no knackers, runs regularly right through the morning and evening ( it actually runs more buses than CIE in the rather critical 7am-8pm slot ). This bus service is a godsend as I cant stomach the service that CIE provides. And it operates for profit - not as a public service, it has to win customers and keep them loyal by a consistently high quality of service. Meanwhile CIE dont care if theyre making a loss on the route - hence the "You dont like the service? tough **** - i still get paid" attitude thats endemic in CIE and the rest of the semi-state bodies.

And the popular myth is that this route is unsustainable and that CIE are doing us a favour coming out here. If thats true how the hell are the private bus service *expanding* all the time when competing with a monopoly that can undercut their prices whenever it wants?

In other words, where a service is deemed so useful to the state that it's worth bailing out? Like, say, telephony, postal services, bus or rail or airline transport companies?

All those services can be provided privately, if theyre worth providing at all and if people consider them worth paying for - if neither side does then why should they be provided? They may be useful to that state, but they do not require the states involvement.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
If An Post go on strike the government is called in.

Good thing that hasn't happened then, huh?

When a union can not only threaten its employers, but the entire country and its government then it has crossed the line from protecting its members interests to exploiting its strenth to the detriment of society - and the government has a role in protecting society from monopolies abusing their strenth to the detriment of society.

The whole point I've been trying to get across, sand, is that there is no line. The unions have a duty of care to their members and no-one else. And if you impose such a duty, you'll have to impose the same duty on management or you'll destroy a working adversarial system.

Didnt the workers down tools?

No, they were suspended for refusing to use the new tools as I understand it. No-one thought to get them to continue with business as usual while management and unions negotiated a settlement. Or, more accurately, management did - but decided against it as a negotiation tactic and so you need to blame your concerns on management and not unions. That duty-of-care thing should be applied to both sides, if it's applied at all, as I said.

The trouble is over the unions refusal to do their job with the tools theyre provided because these tools are too efficient and mean the overtime that theyre NOT entitled to would no longer be the norm.

Okay, you missed the point here that they would also lose up to half their pay because their working hours were to be cut in half and they would be made part-time as well as loosing the overtime.

But there is discrimination isnt there? Because someone chooses to live in a remote part of the country and enjoys the low property prices, scenery and reputedly more sedate pace of life Ive got to pay more than I should.

For a start, that's a lovely rosy picture you're painting there, but if I had the choice, I wouldn't choose to live there, having grown up there and seen the warts that go with that lovely picture.
Secondly, as many people as there are in Dublin, there are more outside Dublin, so you're talking about penalising the majority for living outside a set area.

I think theyre quite linked and the unions recognise it too - unions are far more powerful in the public sector, and they heartily resist privatisation

Bollocks. You need to go read that SBPost article, Sand - there isn't a union in the country in a semi-state that thinks privitisation is bad, not because of the ideological reasons, but because they saw how eircom employees made out like bandits when they privatised, so so long as they have their chunk of the company when it happens, they're happy.

Try the private bus company I use to get in from County Kildare to Dublin every weekday

A private company, operating a route it can make a profit on. And can you say that'd happen with routes that are needed but which will never be profitable?

All those services can be provided privately, if theyre worth providing at all and if people consider them worth paying for - if neither side does then why should they be provided?

That's a lot of ifs all stacked up there.

Sand

Good thing that hasn't happened then, huh?

http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4184

Also I heard the communications minister cancelled his plans to visit India as part of Irelands duties in the EU presidency as a result of the strike.

The whole point I've been trying to get across, sand, is that there is no line. The unions have a duty of care to their members and no-one else.

Agreed - I accept this totally. Which is why unions and public service companies are totally incompatible. Public service companies are *supposed* to operate in the general publics interest. Unions are undermining this by opposing equipment which will increase the efficiency of the public service - their interest is not the public interest.

I can understand utterly that they would operate only in their own interests - they are a monopoly. Like any monopoly the government needs to act to break their power to eliminate market distortions. Either eliminate the union by sacking all its workers and hiring non-union workers ( controversial ) or break up and privatise An Post so that no single company, and thus no union can have such a stranglehold on infrastructure on which the nations economy depends.

In such a case, unions revert to their accepted role of protecting workers from *exploitation* rather than simply exploiting others.

No, they were suspended for refusing to use the new tools as I understand it.

Im not going to argue. If downing tools doesnt mean not using the tools theyre given to you then well be here all day.

No-one thought to get them to continue with business as usual while management and unions negotiated a settlement.

There is no settlement to make - the unions dont run the company, the management do. The management have a responsibility to run the company in the public interest - operating at a loss if neccessary. As you say yourself the unions dont. Hence the unions have absolutely no role or right to dictate company policy. They have job. Theyre given tools to do that job. Thats the be all and end all of their interest. Again, as you admit they dont give two damns about the company. Hence they should be nowhere near the steering wheel.

The actual idea that the union should be running the company is so crazy that it just displays how urgently the unions needs their wings clipped. Should the management be representing the workers in their industrial disputes?

Okay, you missed the point here that they would also lose up to half their pay because their working hours were to be cut in half and they would be made part-time as well as loosing the overtime.

But you see, thats not my problem. Its got nothing to do with the company. The company is allowed a monopoly based on the fiction that it operates in the public interest. It doesnt operate in the unions interest. It doesnt exist to give overtime and provide jobs to the union. This is the mentality which goes hand in hand with public companies and why public companies need to be privatised so badly.

I know exactly why the unions would strike. But its not my concern, and its not An Posts concern. An Posts concern is operating a postal service in the public interest as efficiently as possible under that remit. Hence the unions power needs to be broken as theyre acting against that remit. Even someone who believes in public companies should see that? Either break the unions or privatise - I prefer privatisation myself as its less harsh.

For a start, that's a lovely rosy picture you're painting there, but if I had the choice, I wouldn't choose to live there, having grown up there and seen the warts that go with that lovely picture.
Secondly, as many people as there are in Dublin, there are more outside Dublin, so you're talking about penalising the majority for living outside a set area.

Yeah, there are pros and their are cons - its the same for living in the GDA. The major con to living in the GDA is housing costs which is why the GDA continually creeps outward as people try to find somewhere they can afford to live. The con to living outside the GDA is that services are more costly to provide. thats a con. Live with it. People in the GDA have to live with the property prices.

Phone services would be provided without a state telephone company but at a fair price, an efficient price. If that price is so scandalous then move to the GDA - if you can afford to of course.

Bollocks. You need to go read that SBPost article, Sand - there isn't a union in the country in a semi-state that thinks privitisation is bad, not because of the ideological reasons, but because they saw how eircom employees made out like bandits when they privatised, so so long as they have their chunk of the company when it happens, they're happy.

What youre saying is they dont think privatisation is bad if they manage to exploit their strenth now to ensure a continuation of their ability to exploit their strenth later. Well thats just fecking great. if union workers want to buy shares of a private company in the open market then great - but no special deals to my mind ( and yes that means none for management either ). Unfortunately Eircoms not the sort of example Id view as one to follow. Eircom was/is still a monopoly - competition exists to a certain extent but Eircom has continuously abused its market position to hinder rivals.

A private company, operating a route it can make a profit on. And can you say that'd happen with routes that are needed but which will never be profitable?

but thats just it - i hear again and again that this route is unprofitable, that its unsustainable that CIE are doing us a favour. And yet I see this private company not only surviving on this route whilst in competion with a subsidised public company that can easily undercut it, but actually expanding. If CIE were broken up and the route opened to some real competion just how much more could they, or other companies expand?

And how many other routes out there are viewed as being unprofitbale when theyre no such thing? At least not in the hands of a private, profit focused company. Rather than a bureacracy ridden mess which is being exploited by unions and management alike at the exspense of the general public who are paying for the **** public service they receive.

That's a lot of ifs all stacked up there.

Youre right, lets stick with the current broken system. Public service companies would work if the management operated them in the public interest, if the unions within them operated in the public interest, if, if, if.

AngelofFire

im 100% pro trade union. who else would stand up for the rights of the employees ie those who create the wealth which is mainly given to the pen pushers. theres a lack of democracy in the workplaces in ireland as it stands.

jim larkin would be turining in his grave if he could read half the posts on this thread

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Im not going to argue. If downing tools doesnt mean not using the tools theyre given to you then well be here all day.

It's not that minor a difference!

There is no settlement to make - the unions dont run the company, the management do.

Yup, and neither I nor anyone else is disputing this - but eliminating overtime and halving basic pay isn't going to be meekly accepted without question in any company, large or small, and for An Post to believe it would be is stretching credulity way past breaking point. It had to be a cynical negotiation strategy, and that means that they're not running the company in the public interest, doesn't it?

What youre saying is they dont think privatisation is bad if they manage to exploit their strenth now to ensure a continuation of their ability to exploit their strenth later.

No, not even close. I'm saying that An Post management think privatisation would be a great thing because of the immediate personal financial rewards they would gain - and unions think it's a great idea if they can negotiate a deal to get the employees given a percentage of stock as in Eircom, because of the immediate personal financial gains that they would all make. It has no ideological basis whatsoever.

(And before you slag off the unions, please go read the article I linked to - management are the ones with more guilt to bear regarding shirking duty to the public to chase personal gain through privatisation...)

If CIE were broken up and the route opened to some real competion just how much more could they, or other companies expand?

Not by much, depending on how it's handled - it's more likely that routes would be auctioned off rather than us seeing any actual competition on routes - and you're still not dealing with the actual social routes - not the suburbs-to-dublin route you're specifically mentioning.

Youre right, lets stick with the current broken system.

Actually, they tried fixing it. That's what the whole social partnership idea was about.
But if you're going to say "this is broken" sand, you're not being unique - you need to say "this is a better way of doing it" to be in some way useful....

oscarBravo

Originally posted by AngelofFire
who else would stand up for the rights of the employees ie those who create the wealth which is mainly given to the pen pushers.

Hm. Doesn't sound very bright to me: the majority of the people have all the wealth-creating power, and they just meekly hand over all the wealth they've created to the unproductive minority?

Could it possibly be that there's more to it than this cliché-ridden worker's-paradise-aspiring post suggests?

Sand

Yup, and neither I nor anyone else is disputing this - but eliminating overtime and halving basic pay isn't going to be meekly accepted without question in any company, large or small, and for An Post to believe it would be is stretching credulity way past breaking point. It had to be a cynical negotiation strategy, and that means that they're not running the company in the public interest, doesn't it?

It may not be meekly accepted, but thats the unions problem - there is no right to overtime, there is no right to a job. If the management introduce equipment to increase the efficiency of the public service then they are operating in the public interest - to be intimidated out of it for fear of upsetting the union is operating in the unions interest, which as you say yourself is not the same thing.

No, not even close. I'm saying that An Post management think privatisation would be a great thing because of the immediate personal financial rewards they would gain - and unions think it's a great idea if they can negotiate a deal to get the employees given a percentage of stock as in Eircom, because of the immediate personal financial gains that they would all make. It has no ideological basis whatsoever.

Neither should get *any* special deal. If the management want to buy stock on the open market , fine, if the union workers want to - fine. But absolutely no deals. Unions have no interest in the long run success of the company even when its operating in their members interests. You claim the management doesnt either. So we can both agree neither should gain any undue control over the company when its privatised.

Unions oppose privatisation because properly brought about it will crush their control over infrastructure. Idealogically, of course not - if they can wrangle a deal where they retain a similar level of strenth to hold the countrys infrastructure to ransom then of course theyll be happy. Unions have no social conscience as youve said - they only care that they can exploit their strenth. Proper privatisation will break their strenth, for the benefit of society as a whole.

Not by much, depending on how it's handled - it's more likely that routes would be auctioned off rather than us seeing any actual competition on routes - and you're still not dealing with the actual social routes - not the suburbs-to-dublin route you're specifically mentioning.

Routes being auctioned off would simply continue the bad service and general all round crap people have to put up with from CIE. Simply break up the company and sell off the assets to private bus companies to run their own services as they see fit.

As for social routes can you name one? I was of the understanding that the only routes CIE ran were the suburbs to dublin routes with a few north side city center to south side city center routes? Social routes are operated in the interests of Irish society - if a route is so badly thought out that it cant turn a profit in these days of commuting and dormitory towns then its not in the interest of society.

Actually, they tried fixing it. That's what the whole social partnership idea was about. But if you're going to say "this is broken" sand, you're not being unique - you need to say "this is a better way of doing it" to be in some way useful....

I said more than this is broken, I offered a way of making an improvement - two ways actually.

All youve offered is the same old failed social partnership and heavy state involvement.

im 100% pro trade union.

Which union? Cos if youre not in theirs they dont give two damns about you - ask sparks if you dont believe me.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
It may not be meekly accepted, but thats the unions problem

Actually, it appears to be everyone's problem.

there is no right to overtime

An undisputed fact.

there is no right to a job.

Incorrect, since they have civil service tenure.

If the management introduce equipment to increase the efficiency of the public service then they are operating in the public interest - to be intimidated out of it for fear of upsetting the union is operating in the unions interest, which as you say yourself is not the same thing.

Except that they are not acting in the public interest, they are shaping An Post up for privatisiation so that they get a nice juicy wad of cash. You need to go read the Sunday Business Post article I linked to above, it explains this in detail.

Neither should get *any* special deal.

An ideological statement that neither the CWU nor An Post management would either acknowlege as correct or attempt to implement. Both sides want that financial reward, and chasing after it is nothing more than that capitalist system you're so fond of in action. All this malarky about how private companies are better? Well, this is the same motivation that private companies live and die by.

Unions oppose privatisation because properly brought about it will crush their control over infrastructure.

Incorrect, on several grounds:
1) Unions can merge to form larger unions. The CWU is a case in point, and SIPTU.
2) Unions desire a weapon for use in negotiations with management. Controlling national infrastructure is a sledgehammer where a screwdriver is usually the desired implement. Only in negotiations with Government does the ability to affect things on a national level come into play, and that's when larger unions like SIPTU come in.
3) Privatisation is seen as an excellent thing by unions, after the Eircom deal, for completely nonideological reasons.

Routes being auctioned off would simply continue the bad service and general all round crap people have to put up with from CIE. Simply break up the company and sell off the assets to private bus companies to run their own services as they see fit.

And they'll see fit to serve the highest-profit routes with the minimum of overheads. For the same reason that An Post management is trying to prepare An Post for privatisation - and with similar consequences, namely that we all get it in the neck if that turns up more money for the company.
Look at Ryanair and the safety issues with their procedures, for example. Now imagine this model applied to buses, and there you have it.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sparks
Look at Ryanair and the safety issues with their procedures, for example. Now imagine this model applied to buses, and there you have it.

And that's exactly who Citylink reminded me of when I took a bus from Galway-Dublin...as compared to Bus Eirann.
It's like taking Ryanair as opposed to British Airways.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
As for social routes can you name one? I was of the understanding that the only routes CIE ran were the suburbs to dublin routes with a few north side city center to south side city center routes?

Are you talking CIE or Dublin Bus?

CIE is - unless my memory is failing me, which is entirely possible - an umbrella organisation covering Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, the various other town bus services, and good ol' Iarnrod Eireann.

Now, really, if you can't think of a single loss-making route within all of that......

jc