CIF rewards Parlon Policies?

jmayo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is no corruption in the usual sense of the word here. Tom Parlon's appointment will increase the efficiency with which public money will be transferred to private hands. It's called the market and the "players" seek to exercise power within it.

Is it just me or do the words "efficiency" and "public money" seem incorrect together?
Ahh maybe I am just thinking of PPARS, Port Tunnel, Luas, etc, etc.
Parlon got the job for a few reasons.

1. he does have an inside track to a department, that outside of dept. of environment, spends money on projects that would be of interest to construction industry.

2. he is familiar with both civil servants and government ministeries and has channels of cummincation to them that other people may not

3. he was head of IFA which is yet another organisation that also carries out a lot of lobbying of government to acheive it's members' goals.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

If the direction in it remains the same as when he was there,thats not guaranteed.Seriously do you think that a foreign company wouldn't eventually be aware or even as it is, of the style of other bids (aside from price) going into the OPW or elsewhere for that matter ? If you think that then this hair split you're on is exactly that a hair split.
Obviously.I refer you back to my skinning cats post above.

you can dismiss it as hair splitting but it does not change the fact that Parlon has significant insider information that would be extremely valuable to members of the CIF
Your assertion that eventually foreign companies would be aware of the style of other bids is nonsensical we are talking about now and it is the information that Parlon has now that is the issue eventually Parlons inside information will be useless but right here and right now it is valuable that is the issue.
You are talking about general style where the issue is specifics that might sway specific tenders that are current


If there is no issue then why are the senior civil servants prohibited from moving in to an area in the private sector which is directly related to the area that they worked on in the public service. If that applies to the permanent government should it not also apply to the people who were in charge of the permanent government

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

you can dismiss it as hair splitting but it does not change the fact that Parlon has significant insider information that would be extremely valuable to members of the CIF

Who happen to be the entire Irish construction industry.

Your assertion that eventually foreign companies would be aware of the style of other bids is nonsensical we are talking about now and it is the information that Parlon has now that is the issue eventually Parlons inside information will be useless but right here and right now it is valuable that is the issue.
You are talking about general style where the issue is specifics that might sway specific tenders that are current

Point taken as regards the here and now,though it's only a maybe given that someone else is in charge of the OPW now who may take a different view to Parlon. But really your point also dilutes your worry regarding competition effeciencies in having foreign construction firms interested unless you expect the CIF to sack Parlon in favour of the next retired junior minister when they become available.

If there is no issue then why are the senior civil servants prohibited from moving in to an area in the private sector which is directly related to the area that they worked on in the public service. If that applies to the permanent government should it not also apply to the people who were in charge of the permanent government

Maybe we should constrict councillors as well from owning businesses lest they get favours they are not otherwise entitled to? Why stop there,lets bar their relatives and friends too or anyone with any hint or fear of getting inside information because they know someone or are familiar with a process.
Seems logical to me.
Yes you have me convinced.
Hang on wheres my copy of Orwell,this is serious business we better get it right and ensure all bases are covered.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Who happen to be the entire Irish construction industry.

But they are not the only ones involved in construction so your point is?

Tristrame wrote:

Point taken as regards the here and now,though it's only a maybe given that someone else is in charge of the OPW now who may take a different view to Parlon. But really your point also dilutes your worry regarding competition effeciencies in having foreign construction firms interested unless you expect the CIF to sack Parlon in favour of the next retired junior minister when they become available.

How?
Parlon is there now and he has information that is current that is the issue
If he waited a reasonable time (say the 12 months that he still gets paid from the state) then I would not have an issue as things would have moved on

Tristrame wrote:

Maybe we should constrict councillors as well from owning businesses lest they get favours they are not otherwise entitled to? Why stop there,lets bar their relatives and friends too or anyone with any hint or fear of getting inside information because they know someone or are familiar with a process.
Seems logical to me.
Yes you have me convinced.
Hang on wheres my copy of Orwell,this is serious business we better get it right and ensure all bases are covered.

Councillors have a lot less power than Junior Ministers but I would agree if they have an interest in property or run an estate agents then they should be barred from planning decisions that they could personally benefit from.

I do not think that it is Orwellian to suggest that people should not be allowed to use knowledge gained in public office for personal enrichment.
BTW mock sarcasm does little for your point of view it is actually disapointing that someone who is moderating here stoops to trying to ridicule and protray arguments against someone moving directly from an area of responsibility in to the private sector linked directly to that area as some kind of tin foil hat argument

Jackie laughlin

JMayo,
In Ireland public money is seldom efficiently or effectively used but it is efficiently routed through to enrich a few.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

But they are not the only ones involved in construction so your point is?

Consistently through the thread that to expect politicians here not to find some method to favour Irish construction companies is banal and quirky.

How?
Parlon is there now and he has information that is current that is the issue
If he waited a reasonable time (say the 12 months that he still gets paid from the state) then I would not have an issue as things would have moved on

So your particular problem is the risk that some foreign firms might be at a disadvantage in the next 12 months?
Sorry I don't share that worry,I've enough confidence in the commercial ability of those companies to know what to do already.

Councillors have a lot less power than Junior Ministers but I would agree if they have an interest in property or run an estate agents then they should be barred from planning decisions that they could personally benefit from.

Nah you'd want to go a lot further than that and put them into solitary confinement as there'd be a chance they might talk to some one that is.
I'd recommend Gitmo.

I do not think that it is Orwellian to suggest that people should not be allowed to use knowledge gained in public office for personal enrichment.

I see your point but I think little of it due to the simple reason of the next stage and the next and the next ie all the people these people could talk to socially and otherwise would for clarity have to be muzzled aswell.
It's just not realistic.

BTW mock sarcasm does little for your point of view it is actually disapointing that someone who is moderating here stoops to trying to ridicule and protray arguments against someone moving directly from an area of responsibility in to the private sector linked directly to that area as some kind of tin foil hat argument

I didn't know sarcasm was against the charter here...(It isn't but attacking the poster as opposed to the post is) at least I'm making a point with the sarcasm unlike some (not talking about you when I say that by the way) who just throw it in because apparently they've nothing substantial to say.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Consistently through the thread that to expect politicians here not to find some method to favour Irish construction companies is banal and quirky.

They are not allowed to favour a company based on nationality to do so would open up this country to claims for billions from those unsuccessful bidders. If you are just going to throw your hands up and say ah sure thats the way it is that is not an acceptable defence when it comes to court.
Any tender has to be judged on certain criteria that can be checked and verified afterwards

Tristrame wrote:

So your particular problem is the risk that some foreign firms might be at a disadvantage in the next 12 months?
Sorry I don't share that worry,I've enough confidence in the commercial ability of those companies to know what to do already.

No my concern is that Parlon may use his particular inside knowledge for personal gain and to the detriment of the Irish taxpayer

Tristrame wrote:

Nah you'd want to go a lot further than that and put them into solitary confinement as there'd be a chance they might talk to some one that is.
I'd recommend Gitmo.

No I don't need you to tell me what I want to do it is reasonable to bar people who have personal interest from certain decisions it is called conflict of interest.

Tristrame wrote:

I see your point but I think little of it due to the simple reason of the next stage and the next and the next ie all the people these people could talk to socially and otherwise would for clarity have to be muzzled aswell.

No you are completely missing the point and it seems deliberately trying to muddy the waters. The issue is not who Mr Parlon or anyone else talks to is that he has taken up a paid position in a company that bids for contracts worth billions of euro that up to a couple of weeks ago he had responsibility for overseeing. He was in that position to look after the best interests of the citizens of this state and he has now directly moved to a position where he could use that knowledge for his own personal benefit to the detriment of the citizens of this state.

.

Tristrame wrote:

It's just not realistic.

And you have never addressed the issue of why it is acceptable for this state to block civil servants from doing exactly what Mr Parlon has done. If the state sees the issue of conflict of interest with Civil servants why does it not see it in relation to the person who was in charge of those civil servants.

Tristrame wrote:

I didn't know sarcasm was against the charter here...(It isn't but attacking the poster as opposed to the post is) at least I'm making a point with the sarcasm unlike some (not talking about you when I say that by the way) who just throw it in because apparently they've nothing substantial to say.

That is your own personal opinion ( that your posts are making a point)

jmayo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

JMayo,
In Ireland public money is seldom efficiently or effectively used but it is efficiently routed through to enrich a few.

True can't argue with that. Sure how else would certain people make sure their friends got rich. Funny how it's always the same names that appear to crop up.

Seth Brundle

<off topic>I don't know if you have seen the cover of the current Phoenix but its good!

</off topic>

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

They are not allowed to favour a company based on nationality to do so would open up this country to claims for billions from those unsuccessful bidders. If you are just going to throw your hands up and say ah sure thats the way it is that is not an acceptable defence when it comes to court.
Any tender has to be judged on certain criteria that can be checked and verified afterwards

so whats your worry then if any of them can be checked for parlon bias afterwards?
Besides my point was simply there are many ways to skin a cat within the rules.

No my concern is that Parlon may use his particular inside knowledge for personal gain and to the detriment of the Irish taxpayer

That applies to everyone in public life or everyone friendly with them which is my point.
How do you close that down suffeciently? Impossible I would say.

No I don't need you to tell me what I want to do it is reasonable to bar people who have personal interest from certain decisions it is called conflict of interest.

Oh I was just making the point that to be fair you'd have to go all the way down the line with that and exclude associates/friends/relations and constituents to the nth degree whilst you were on a crusade to be fair about this.

No you are completely missing the point and it seems deliberately trying to muddy the waters. The issue is not who Mr Parlon or anyone else talks to is that he has taken up a paid position in a company that bids for contracts worth billions of euro that up to a couple of weeks ago he had responsibility for overseeing. He was in that position to look after the best interests of the citizens of this state and he has now directly moved to a position where he could use that knowledge for his own personal benefit to the detriment of the citizens of this state.

It's not a company its a confederation for companies.

]
And you have never addressed the issue of why it is acceptable for this state to block civil servants from doing exactly what Mr Parlon has done. If the state sees the issue of conflict of interest with Civil servants why does it not see it in relation to the person who was in charge of those civil servants.

Are civil servants barred from taking up positions in lobbying organisations or heading unions which are also lobbying organisations?

That is your own personal opinion ( that your posts are making a point)

Rofl.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

so whats your worry then if any of them can be checked for parlon bias afterwards?
Besides my point was simply there are many ways to skin a cat within the rules.

No your point was that there would be bias anyway so parlon queering the pitch makes no difference. My point is that there is not supposed to be any bias by the Government and besides bias discovered afterwards leads to large compensation claims as we might discover in the near future in relation to the 2nd mobile phone license

Tristrame wrote:

That applies to everyone in public life or everyone friendly with them which is my point.
How do you close that down suffeciently? Impossible I would say.

You close it down the same way that it is closed down for civil servants that is how.

Tristrame wrote:

Oh I was just making the point that to be fair you'd have to go all the way down the line with that and exclude associates/friends/relations and constituents to the nth degree whilst you were on a crusade to be fair about this.

So your point is that we should do nothing you appear to be picking at straws tbh associates/friends/relations were not in the OPW Mr Parlon was so the issue of conflict of interest applies to him.

Tristrame wrote:

Are civil servants barred from taking up positions in lobbying organisations or heading unions which are also lobbying organisations?

Yes senior civil servants do need goverment approval if they are moving directly to an area that is directly related to their area in the civil service until aperiod of time I think it is 12 months has passed

jmayo

Kbannon nice one
Maybe Parlon can also do a deal for the IFA building all those walkways that they are on about for the hillwalkers ?

Should we rename this the Voipjunkie vs Tristrame thread

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

No your point was that there would be bias anyway so parlon queering the pitch makes no difference. My point is that there is not supposed to be any bias by the Government and besides bias discovered afterwards leads to large compensation claims as we might discover in the near future in relation to the 2nd mobile phone license

Ah the mobile phone chessnut.You're giving an example that might never happen to shore up something that might happen but that there is no evidence will happen.

You close it down the same way that it is closed down for civil servants that is how.

Which is impossible as you would, bringing it to the nth degree have to muzzle the entire population.

So your point is that we should do nothing you appear to be picking at straws tbh associates/friends/relations were not in the OPW Mr Parlon was so the issue of conflict of interest applies to him.

Well the salary paid by the CIF presumably isn't any bigger for Parlon than it would be for anyone else-ergo what personal gain would he have from this other than his legal salary ?

Yes senior civil servants do need goverment approval if they are moving directly to an area that is directly related to their area in the civil service until aperiod of time I think it is 12 months has passed

So employee's of the Department of social welfare can't join a union then ? They certainly are barred from leading that union then?They cannot have any friendships with senior civil servants in other quarters of government in the same union.
They cannot share information when they negotiate their terms and conditions?
A union is to it's members as the CIF is to it's members.
You're going to be quite busy policing this new orwellian world voipjunkie.
Remind me not to subscribe to it.

Pride Fighter

Parlon taking this job tells us he thinks the PD's are dead:D .
People should not worry, he will be arrested for corruption soon enough:)

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Ah the mobile phone chessnut.You're giving an example that might never happen to shore up something that might happen but that there is no evidence will happen.

No I am giving an example of what can happen if you leave it till after the event to find out about bias

Tristrame wrote:

Which is impossible as you would, bringing it to the nth degree have to muzzle the entire population.

No it is only in relation to the person employed.

Tristrame wrote:

Well the salary paid by the CIF presumably isn't any bigger for Parlon than it would be for anyone else-ergo what personal gain would he have from this other than his legal salary ?

Well that is a rather large presumption as we do not know what Parlons pay packet is or what the pay packet of anyone else would have been or indeed more pointedly if Parlon would have got the job if he had not been in charge of the OPW for a number of years

Tristrame wrote:

So employee's of the Department of social welfare can't join a union then ? They certainly are barred from leading that union then?They cannot have any friendships with senior civil servants in other quarters of government in the same union.
They cannot share information when they negotiate their terms and conditions?
A union is to it's members as the CIF is to it's members.
You're going to be quite busy policing this new orwellian world voipjunkie.
Remind me not to subscribe to it.

You have gone off on a bizarre tangent in order to try and support your assertion that this is unworkable

A It applies to Senior civil servants
B What has the Dept of Social Welfare got to do with a trade union
C No one said anything about anyone having a friendship with anyone
D No one mentioned anything about pay and conditions negotiations within the civil service or any arm of Government

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

No I am giving an example of what can happen if you leave it till after the event to find out about bias

a very paranoid example if you think sucessfull large businesses don't make it their business already in various ways to know the inner thoughts of government departments.

No it is only in relation to the person employed.

I see so you don't care that Parlon could indirectly give the benefit of his experience through any other sentient being? Or any other person in the know could do the same for that matter which was my point.
Your worries should really be never ending to be honest...

Well that is a rather large presumption as we do not know what Parlons pay packet is or what the pay packet of anyone else would have been or indeed more pointedly if Parlon would have got the job if he had not been in charge of the OPW for a number of years

Yeah it's as speculative as your worries I suppose.

You have gone off on a bizarre tangent in order to try and support your assertion that this is unworkable

A It applies to Senior civil servants
B What has the Dept of Social Welfare got to do with a trade union
C No one said anything about anyone having a friendship with anyone
D No one mentioned anything about pay and conditions negotiations within the civil service or any arm of Government

Lol-I mentioned those things because for consistency,you'd want to extend your worries there too.
It has everything to do with the fears you are expressing.
Wheres the sense in banning the first principle without banning the downstream associates aswell.
Fact of the matter is, it would make the whole "rule" that you like and wish applied more extensively rather pointless and a waste of space.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

a very paranoid example if you think sucessfull large businesses don't make it their business already in various ways to know the inner thoughts of government departments.


I see so you don't care that Parlon could indirectly give the benefit of his experience through any other sentient being? Or any other person in the know could do the same for that matter which was my point.
Your worries should really be never ending to be honest...
Yeah it's as speculative as your worries I suppose.
Lol-I mentioned those things because for consistency,you'd want to extend your worries there too.
It has everything to do with the fears you are expressing.
Wheres the sense in banning the first principle without banning the downstream associates aswell.
Fact of the matter is, it would make the whole "rule" that you like and wish applied more extensively rather pointless and a waste of space.

That is complete nonsense the rule already applies to senior civil servants without any problem and without it having to be extended to everyone they come in contact with. It also applies in many other countries and it is often a stipulation in private contracts that employees with sensitive knowledge can not move directly to a competitor until a given time frame has expired.

But for some reason you believe that Irish politicians are somehow more honest and trustworthy and should not be hindered in such a manner or perhaps you believe that all those other countries and large corporations that insist on such stipulations are wasting their time.
The issue is in this case Parlon not his brother sister mother or wife trying to suggest that it is pointless stopping a person moving directly to benefit from insider knowledge because they could get their brother or friend to take the position is complete and utter nonsense.
Maybe we should have no laws because people might find away around them :rolleyes:

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

That is complete nonsense the rule already applies to senior civil servants without any problem and without it having to be extended to everyone they come in contact with. It also applies in many other countries and it is often a stipulation in private contracts that employees with sensitive knowledge can not move directly to a competitor until a given time frame has expired.

you're saying it's complete nonsense that a senior civil servant can talk to anyone(for cash if necessary) and impart his/her knowledge confidentially??
I think for you to think that can't happen or to think a ban rules that out is the complete nonsense to be totally honest with you.
Thats why I think all this moral high ground "do the honest thing" palava you're preaching is worthless in reality.

Maybe we should have no laws because people might find away around them :rolleyes:

Well to be fair maybe we should just be practical about them...thats a far cry from having no laws.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

you're saying it's complete nonsense that a senior civil servant can talk to anyone(for cash if necessary) and impart his/her knowledge confidentially??
I think for you to think that can't happen or to think a ban rules that out is the complete nonsense to be totally honest with you.
Thats why I think all this moral high ground "do the honest thing" palava you're preaching is worthless in reality.


Well to be fair maybe we should just be practical about them...thats a far cry from having no laws.

Well we have laws against various things that does not stop them from happening and it does not make them any less wrong
We have laws against murder but lo and behold people still murder other people maybe we should be realistic and just accept that murder will continue to happen and we can not stop it so no point having a law against it same with traffic laws any kind of corruption law in fact any law.
You seem to completely misunderstand the reason for a law banning a particular activity it does not mean that the activity will cease it means that we as a society find that activity unacceptable and will punish those who are proven to have engaged in it.
If you could name one law that completely prevented the particular activity from ever happening I would love to hear it yet we do not say ah well just leave it so.
There will always be corruption there will always be murder etc etc no matter what the law says or what the punishment is even the death penalty will not prevent any activity that does not mean that such activity is acceptable because you can not stop it.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

Well we have laws against various things that does not stop them from happening and it does not make them any less wrong

We have laws against people talking to one another now? Or is it that you want them?

We have laws against murder but lo and behold people still murder other people maybe we should be realistic and just accept that murder will continue to happen and we can not stop it so no point having a law against it same with traffic laws any kind of corruption law in fact any law.

Murder is the same as people talking to one another?
Wow what a perspective you have.

You seem to completely misunderstand the reason for a law banning a particular activity it does not mean that the activity will cease it means that we as a society find that activity unacceptable and will punish those who are proven to have engaged in it.

Oh that bit I get-just not your lack of perspective on the impracticality of it in the case we are discussing.
Any information that any civil servant/politician/innocent bystander has could go anywhere confidentially and theres not a thing that can be done about it bar we hire the stazi.
Short of doing that,giving out about Parlons new job is worthless.

If you could name one law that completely prevented the particular activity from ever happening I would love to hear it yet we do not say ah well just leave it so.

Perspective again.You could split more hairs in trying to equate heinous crimes with common human nature (speech and peoples willingness to talk among themselves) untill the cows come home but it only underlines the impracticality of what you are advocating and the ridiculousness of the comparison.

There will always be corruption there will always be murder etc etc no matter what the law says or what the punishment is even the death penalty will not prevent any activity that does not mean that such activity is acceptable because you can not stop it.

There you go again sensationalising through the comparison of murder laws with the implications of freedom of speech.
Barrel scraping if ever I saw it.I'd like to see a politician make an argument with that platform.
Yes lads we're going to muzzle ye all.
It's jail for the whole lot of ye including you my constituents lest ye benefit from talking to people...

Seth Brundle

the plot thickens...
http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/mhkfsnaueyey/

CIF legal action to set Parlon against Govt
15/07/2007 - 10:07:10

Former Junior Minister and Progressive Democrats TD Tom Parlon looks set to lead a legal action against the Government following his departure from politics.

According to the Sunday Tribune, the Construction Industry Federation is taking the State to the European Court of Justice over new contracts which fix the cost of public building projects financed by the Office of Public Works.

As Director General of the organisation, Mr Parlon will oversee the court challenge less than six months after he praised the policy when he was still a Junior Minister.

mike65

Bah beaten to it. Like I said earlier 5 years before an ex-minister can be considered clean.

Mike.

yeah I heard that yesterday.
Whats thick about that plot ?
It's not as if the action has been taken yet and parlon is aware of the departments attitude to it other than they are likely to vigorously defend it.

I'll grant you that it's quirky that he's going to be on the other side of the legal action.
But like when you are working for an organisation your purpose is to better it.
The purpose of the cap on opw costs is as clearly within that framework as the CIF's opposition to it.

Are we saying now that people cannot move to competitor companies because like working for the new company could mean you are being detrimental to your old one? You can't take a different position in one job than in another based on the specifications of the new job?

Orwell's going to have to close down our job seeking web sites so ,they're complicit.Fás better look out...

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

yeah I heard that yesterday.
Whats thick about that plot ?
It's not as if the action has been taken yet and parlon is aware of the departments attitude to it other than they are likely to vigorously defend it.

I'll grant you that it's quirky that he's going to be on the other side of the legal action.
But like when you are working for an organisation your purpose is to better it.
The purpose of the cap on opw costs is as clearly within that framework as the CIF's opposition to it.

Are we saying now that people cannot move to competitor companies because like working for the new company could mean you are being detrimental to your old one? You can't take a different position in one job than in another based on the specifications of the new job?

Orwell's going to have to close down our job seeking web sites so ,they're complicit.Fás better look out...

Again you fail to see the point companies as a matter of form prevent employees with company sensitive knowledge from moving to competitors. Do you seriously think a pharma company would allow a senior chemist working on the latest drug they are developing move to a competitor? No way it does not happen because those people in the course of their current employment have been entrusted with knowledge that is not for the benefit of another rival company in time when the benefit of that knowledge is passed then they can move on.
Is a barrister allowed to change sides and represent a client on the opposite side of a case they have been briefed on. NO

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

We have laws against people talking to one another now? Or is it that you want them?
Murder is the same as people talking to one another?
Wow what a perspective you have.
Oh that bit I get-just not your lack of perspective on the impracticality of it in the case we are discussing.
Any information that any civil servant/politician/innocent bystander has could go anywhere confidentially and theres not a thing that can be done about it bar we hire the stazi.
Short of doing that,giving out about Parlons new job is worthless.
Perspective again.You could split more hairs in trying to equate heinous crimes with common human nature (speech and peoples willingness to talk among themselves) untill the cows come home but it only underlines the impracticality of what you are advocating and the ridiculousness of the comparison.
There you go again sensationalising through the comparison of murder laws with the implications of freedom of speech.
Barrel scraping if ever I saw it.I'd like to see a politician make an argument with that platform.
Yes lads we're going to muzzle ye all.
It's jail for the whole lot of ye including you my constituents lest ye benefit from talking to people...

Hang on you accuse me of sensationalising and then go on about preventing people from speaking that is pure nonsense let me spell it out for you.

The issue is about taking up a paid position in an organisation that is directly linked to your previous occupation and could benefit from the knowledge you have gleaned while in that organisation.
And while you maintain it is unworkable you have offered no explanation as to why it is currently used for senior civil servants and widely used in the private sector.
If it is unworkable why do the government already do it and why do successful multinational companies waste their time putting it into contracts.


Mr parlon in the last 3 months at the OPW oversaw contracts worth 60 million euro going to the CIF and was involved in a policy of bringing in fixed price contracts for public contracts and he is now going to be paid for advising the CIF how to defeat that measure which he described as necessary to protect public spending on such contracts.
Honestly can you not see the conflict of interest to his former employers (the citizens of this state) and to his new employers the CIF it is truly bizaare if it has not struck home at this stage.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

Hang on you accuse me of sensationalising and then go on about preventing people from speaking that is pure nonsense let me spell it out for you.

Equating murder with freedom of speech is sensationalism and doesn't wash at all.
It's perfectly valid on the other hand to do as I do and point out the folly of imposing your kind of bans and expecting information to sit still.

The issue is about taking up a paid position in an organisation that is directly linked to your previous occupation and could benefit from the knowledge you have gleaned while in that organisation.
And while you maintain it is unworkable you have offered no explanation as to why it is currently used for senior civil servants and widely used in the private sector.

I would have thought that it is obvious from my posts that I'm not defending a civil service ban that I think is worthless.

If it is unworkable why do the government already do it and why do successful multinational companies waste their time putting it into contracts.

I'm not questioning the merit or desire in this cleaner than clinically clean way you want things to operate,I'm questioning the practicality of it,it's worth (given people talk,there is freedom of speech and association in this country).
I've profered to you something that makes total sense, that theres little point in banning something specefic like a job when the information is impossible to ring fence.

Mr parlon in the last 3 months at the OPW oversaw contracts worth 60 million euro going to the CIF and was involved in a policy of bringing in fixed price contracts for public contracts and he is now going to be paid for advising the CIF how to defeat that measure which he described as necessary to protect public spending on such contracts.

So what? He's now being paid to do a different job.Theres no knowing whether the CIF would be sucessfull or not in that case regardless of who was heading them up or regaredless of whether Parlon was still minister.

Honestly can you not see the conflict of interest to his former employers (the citizens of this state) and to his new employers the CIF it is truly bizaare if it has not struck home at this stage.

LoL I refer you back to the implications and logic of what you want to impose again.
No one under such a policy should work for a competitor organisation or company lest they damage their former employer.
We should outlaw t.d's switching parties too ?
Heavens above, do you realise what you should be arguing for here?

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

Again you fail to see the point companies as a matter of form prevent employees with company sensitive knowledge from moving to competitors. Do you seriously think a pharma company would allow a senior chemist working on the latest drug they are developing move to a competitor? No way it does not happen because those people in the course of their current employment have been entrusted with knowledge that is not for the benefit of another rival company in time when the benefit of that knowledge is passed then they can move on.

Thats quite different and is an example of copyright laws.Theres no copyright on skill.

Is a barrister allowed to change sides and represent a client on the opposite side of a case they have been briefed on. NO

A Barrister is quite entitled to defend a case in court and for a different but similar case prosecute from the other side.
That goes on all the time.
Thats in no way similar to Parlons position regarding the CIF's beef with the budget capping unless of course the case had started and was in court when Parlon was in office.
He's not privy to the meetings discussing the case in the department.
However if a civil servant was caught imparting the contents of those meetings to him then he/she should be sacked.
It's a possibility but a very highly unlikely possibility but I suppose people might do anything for money and their decision to do that would depend on who was head of the CIF at the time.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Thats quite different and is an example of copyright laws.Theres no copyright on skill.
A Barrister is quite entitled to defend a case in court and for a different but similar case prosecute from the other side.
That goes on all the time.
Thats in no way similar to Parlons position regarding the CIF's beef with the budget capping unless of course the case had started and was in court when Parlon was in office.
He's not privy to the meetings discussing the case in the department.
However if a civil servant was caught imparting the contents of those meetings to him then he/she should be sacked.
It's a possibility but a very highly unlikely possibility but I suppose people might do anything for money and their decision to do that would depend on who was head of the CIF at the time.

No it is about taking sensitive information that has been entrusted to you by or on behalf of your employer and using it to feather your own nest. It is perfectly normal for CEOs and senior managers to be barred from taking up positions with competitors.

And on the barrister issue the example is very similar yes the barrister can act for either side of a similar case but not for both sides of the same case and that is what Parlon is doing.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

No it is about taking sensitive information that has been entrusted to you by or on behalf of your employer and using it to feather your own nest. It is perfectly normal for CEOs and senior managers to be barred from taking up positions with competitors.

We've already been through this.
Yes some companies legally enforce contracts of employment in that way but it's really only an ego protection issue as sensitive information doesn't stay unknown - what contract of employment has Parlon breached ?
secondly,my point is relation to the futility of barring appointments soley to try to stem that information flow-thats futile.
As for preventing nest feathering-thats a tad communist but to each their own I suppose.

And on the barrister issue the example is very similar yes the barrister can act for either side of a similar case but not for both sides of the same case and that is what Parlon is doing.

No Parlon was not on the other side of the case,if it's not before the courts yet.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Equating murder with freedom of speech is sensationalism and doesn't wash at all.

I never equated Murder with freedom of speech as freedom of speech does not come into this at all other than you keep trying to drag it in.

You suggested that there was no point in banning people from taking up positions because it would not stop information from moving the point is that no law prevents an act from happening it sets out that the act is not in the interest of society as a whole and sets a penalty for those who commit the act.

Tristrame wrote:

It's perfectly valid on the other hand to do as I do and point out the folly of imposing your kind of bans and expecting information to sit still.
I would have thought that it is obvious from my posts that I'm not defending a civil service ban that I think is worthless.

No it is about preventing people from feathering their nests or indeed acting on behalf of their future employer rather than their current one.
So Tristame knows better than the highly paid lawyers that advise companies to have these agreements in their contracts you should perhaps share this with the thousands of multinational companies that insist on such clauses.

Tristrame wrote:

I'm not questioning the merit or desire in this cleaner than clinically clean way you want things to operate,I'm questioning the practicality of it,it's worth (given people talk,there is freedom of speech and association in this country).
I've profered to you something that makes total sense, that theres little point in banning something specefic like a job when the information is impossible to ring fence.

Then why do corporations insist on it yes information can still move but that does not mean that you make it easy and legal for people to operate in this manner. And again the issue is not whether Mr Parlon could or could not talk or associate with anyone it is that he is in paid employment. If Mr Parlon met members of the CIF in his local of course he might tell all he knows over a few pints but why would he this is completely different he is being paid.

Tristrame wrote:

So what? He's now being paid to do a different job.Theres no knowing whether the CIF would be sucessfull or not in that case regardless of who was heading them up or regaredless of whether Parlon was still minister.

LoL I refer you back to the implications and logic of what you want to impose again.
No one under such a policy should work for a competitor organisation or company lest they damage their former employer.
We should outlaw t.d's switching parties too ?
Heavens above, do you realise what you should be arguing for here?

TDs do not work for parties they are members of parties they work for the people.

And I never said no one should not work for a competitor it depends on the employee and the nature of the knowledge etc and obviously what agreements are in place