Reform needed, not a reverse bubble

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because despite the outward appearance of having competition, the ESB really is the only show in town.
Airtricity or Bord Gais do not have the capacity or infrastructure to put up a meaningful fight.

Alas, there are too many issues in this country that have been "left for another day," sometimes for decades.

Agreed.
However, while the economy is on its knees I would deem it somewhat inopportune to gaud the unions into switching off the lights and stopping the trains and planes on top of it all.
Not only for domestic reasons, riots in the streets don't go down well with international financiers either.

Now is not the time to pick this particular fight.

View

ardmacha wrote: »

The lack of time was largely manufactured. The unions actually did come up with proposals for reform, this path might not have removed the need for cut but might have reduced the percentage cut required.

The Unions have promised reforms before and delivered very little. As such, they are like the boy who cries "Wolf!" - when the wolf finally does come, he has serious credibility issues to overcome.

ardmacha

The Unions have promised reforms before and delivered very little. As such, they are like the boy who cries "Wolf!" - when the wolf finally does come, he has serious credibility issues to overcome.

This is always trotted out on this forum. But do you seriously imagine that anyone genuinely asked unions to deliver on "promises" associated with the Bertie benchmarking. These were window dressing, the government and the management never no more intention of seeking their implementation than the unions had. The sad state of some parts of the public sector is not only the fault of unions, it is the fault of management. You only have to look at the variation on performance in the different parts of the PS, working within the same formal HR framework and the same unions. Some depts, some local authorities etc have a pretty efficient service while others are dismal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If the ESB were privatised, it would be even more free to pursue monopolistic practices.

View

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If the ESB were privatised, it would be even more free to pursue monopolistic practices.

That would depend on the Regulator.

View

ardmacha wrote: »

This is always trotted out on this forum. But do you seriously imagine that anyone genuinely asked unions to deliver on "promises" associated with the Bertie benchmarking.

Most tax-payers would expect that if someone signs up a paydeal which is premised on "Reform for extra pay" that they will deliver on it. That applies to all parties involved - including the Unions.

If the Unions engaged in a "window dressing" exercise, then they have no right to expect public sympathy now from the tax-payers who were in effect defrauded by the benchmarking exercise.

Remember the net result of the exercise was that the average public servant saw their wages increase at almost double that of the average industrial worker during the early part of this decade. And, this happened despite the fact that the average public servant was paid significantly more than the average industrial worker at the start of the period.

ardmacha wrote: »

The sad state of some parts of the public sector is not only the fault of unions, it is the fault of management. You only have to look at the variation on performance in the different parts of the PS, working within the same formal HR framework and the same unions.

All civil and public services are paid for by the tax-payer. Since, Unions have consistently argued in favour of strong public (& civil) services, then there is an onus on them to push for the highest standards in the delivery of such services. Saying "It is nothing to do with us" and just adopting a "Dog in the manger" attitude to attempts to improve services (as they frequently do) just doesn't cut it. At the end of the day, it is tax-payers' money that is being wasted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

My solution to the ESB issue would be to privatize the generation stations, and privatize the consumer side of things, leaving the government in control of the actual electricity network. That way companies pay a levy to the Government on the basis of how much of the electricity network they use. In these days of modern computing, I dont see how the electricity used to power the computer I type at couldn't be traced to a station, and the distance it has traveled calculated. The company then pays a set fee per kilometer or meter.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or if the cost of entry is prohibitive.

—in which case the monopoly may actually benefit the consumer.

How?

Daithinski

ei.sdraob wrote: »

nah

once we recover (if? when??)

it be back to same old, handing out money to gain power or get reelected

no need to learn from history sure when you can have champagne in the Galway tent

I think if the government want people to be more accepting of cuts they will have to do the following (which they won't).

1. Admit they fucced up the economy.

2. And then say say sorry.

3. Then say we have learned from our mistakes and we are taking x, y and z measures to make sure this never happens again. (Then actually implement the measures.)

As far as I can see they have learned nothing, admitted no wrong doing or incompetence and have not made any changes to systems/laws etc to prevent future fiascos.

Nobody has been made an example off. People who were sacked politely asked to step down/retire, got golden handshakes others can only dream off. No deterrent here for people to behave as they did.

Now they start wielding the axe to everybody else's wallet.

A large part of the reason the government coffers are dry is due to them buying the last few elections (PS promotions, pay rises and social welfare).

It is beyond belief that they are still in power.

The cowardly greens and the greedy fianna fail have a lot to answer for.

P. Breathnach

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My solution to the ESB issue would be to privatize the generation stations, and privatize the consumer side of things, leaving the government in control of the actual electricity network. That way companies pay a levy to the Government on the basis of how much of the electricity network they use. In these days of modern computing, I dont see how the electricity used to power the computer I type at couldn't be traced to a station, and the distance it has traveled calculated. The company then pays a set fee per kilometer or meter.

I suspect that is what the government (in this case, I don't mean simply the politcal institution, but the political/administrative combination) is working towards.

Mind you, computers or no, I don't think your model for funding the distribution network is the best idea. I suspect that simpler bases for apportionment would be sufficient.

Daithinski

peasant wrote: »

It will however antagonise the unions in the ESB enough that they'll pull the plug ...and then where will we be?

(in the dark?)

There is talk of Eastern European strike breakers being brought in? Would they do this?

http://www.kfmradio.com/kfm-radio/national-news/govt-told-to-bring-in-strike-breakers.html

ardmacha

Most tax-payers would expect that if someone signs up a paydeal which is premised on "Reform for extra pay" that they will deliver on it. That applies to all parties involved - including the Unions.

Which parts of a deal were not delivered on, exactly?

Since, Unions have consistently argued in favour of strong public (& civil) services, then there is an onus on them to push for the highest standards in the delivery of such services. Saying "It is nothing to do with us" and just adopting a "Dog in the manger" attitude to attempts to improve services (as they frequently do) just doesn't cut it.

It is odd here that those most against unions also want them to analyse the macroeconomic condition of the economy, propose changes in public services etc while the management and government plays a passive role.

brianthebard

Daithinski wrote: »

(in the dark?)

There is talk of Eastern European strike breakers being brought in? Would they do this?

http://www.kfmradio.com/kfm-radio/national-news/govt-told-to-bring-in-strike-breakers.html

Scab labour? How long until a general lockout is proposed I wonder?

Dannyboy83

Daithinski wrote: »

(in the dark?)

There is talk of Eastern European strike breakers being brought in? Would they do this?

http://www.kfmradio.com/kfm-radio/national-news/govt-told-to-bring-in-strike-breakers.html

Govt. Told To Bring In Strike Breakers 2009-12-15 14:25:56

The Government's being told it must gear up for a bitter fight over semi-state pay, by arming itself with so called "strike breakers".

Unions have already threatened industrial action in the event any steps are taken to reduce wages at semi-state's including CIE and the ESB.

Its feared that any action involving ESB workers could lead to widespread power outages.

But founder of the University of Limerick, Dr Ed Walsh, says the Government must not allow itself be held to ransom and if necessary should hire in agency workers from other countries:

So they are willing to shut the entire country down?
What about the people in hospital who may die?

Reminds me of this story
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/148469/it_admin_locks_up_san_franciscos_network.html


Don't the Taliban do this? Use human shields etc.?

Sand

Id welcome the unions trying to take a hardline stance on strikes. It would political suicide - the public have absolutely no sympathy given the straits we are in. Hopefully Begg and O Connor talk themselves into a corner and are forced to put up.

It will be a tough few weeks or even months when they do but they can only lose. We do not have the money. It is just an inescapable truth and it wont matter what their contracts are when the governments cheques start to bounce as they will if we dont make cutbacks.

Once the unions are broken by the failure of their strikes, I think we need to look at banning public sector workers from joining trade unions, to fully leverage the victory. The trade unions have become bloated, corrupt cartels that dont even represent the ordinary public sector worker - if anything they are used by some in the public sector to intimidate their co-workers into falling into line with their own wishes.

It is good that people are thinking about looking abroad for assistance we can get from our EU partners - The government needs to start planning for a harsh and bitter strike right now, identify vital infrastructure and ensure they have options to ensure at least a skeleton service is maintained - if that means reaching out to those alienated from their unions, or looking abroad for cover.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Quality fighting talk there donegalclint

As if the unions had ever held anyone to ransom ...all they ever needed doing was furrow their brows somewhat and whatever they wanted was heaped upon them. Not because of "strong" unions but because of a useless, giveaway governement.

The same governement who wouldn't know what to do (now that the gifts have run out) if the unions played hardball for real.

This is not about the meagre paycuts that may be wrangled out of the semi-state employees ...this is about silly, childish role play by governement and union officials who both have long since lost touch with real life and reality.

I just think that the middle of winter in the depth of a recession is the wrong time for playing chicken with essential services.

Put the effort into some real recession beating measures instead ...keep the role play for when it's warrmer again.

View

ardmacha wrote: »

Which parts of a deal were not delivered on, exactly?

Given that you claimed in your previous post that the reform part of benchmarking was "window dressing", I'd have thought that you already know the answer to your own question.

ardmacha wrote: »

It is odd here that those most against unions also want them to analyse the macroeconomic condition of the economy, propose changes in public services etc

The Unions already do economic analysis. They are also happy to propose changes in public services. Some of it is actually interesting. They just don't do "Value for money for the tax-payer" analysis.

ardmacha wrote: »

while the management and government plays a passive role.

Believe me, I amn't exempting them. If you check back though, my point was saying "Oh, we'll sit down and figure out some reforms" just isn't credible at this stage.

The state's finances had gone off course by Summer 2007. There have been 2 years to figure out reforms - 8 if you start the clock at benchmarking. Meanwhile the state continues to clock up debt at an astonishing rate.