Siptu- The money was just resting in our account?

westtip

vincentdunne wrote: »

I am a member of SIPTU and I have to say that I feel fairly sick and betrayed over the whole episode. We have spent the last year hammering the banks and politicians and now we find that 'our own' have been profigate in the same way.
Who do you trust anymore??

I feel sorry for you mate - that Jack O'connor bloke is only lining his own pocket, he is as far removed from being a representative of the working man as the man in the moon. Your Union lost touch with reality a long time ago and these professional Union leaders are no different from the blood sucking politicians we have in our political classes (In partiucular in these clans of "political families") and as for senior civil service levels, most of them couldn't organise a P*ss up in a brewery - I have complete contempt for the lot of them.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you want me to say that what happened is wrong, then no problem: I say that it is wrong.

It would be a considerable mitigation if the funds were applied for a proper purpose. So I would be interested in knowing how the fund was operated. But I have no hesitation in saying that something wrong was done; I'm simply not sure that it was actually a fraud. Remember that the money was not strictly intended to benefit SIPTU; it was intended that SIPTU administer it for a particular purpose, and it seems that another group of people who happen to be associated with SIPTU usurped that function.

Proper purpose? According to SIPTO, there was no requirement for SIPTU to do anything with the funds. There was no service level agreement or contract or anything of that sort. It was more or less "Here's a load of money; do what you want with it". Except that, again according to SIPTU, the money never got to the union but was, in their view, secretly siphoned off by individuals working for SIPTU or associated with that union.

westtip

SkepticOne wrote: »

the money never got to the union but was, in their view, secretly siphoned off by individuals working for SIPTU or associated with that union.

Strange - when I went to school this was called theft.....don't hold your breath for any prosecutions!

P. Breathnach

SkepticOne wrote: »

Proper purpose? According to SIPTO, there was no requirement for SIPTU to do anything with the funds. There was no service level agreement or contract or anything of that sort. It was more or less "Here's a load of money; do what you want with it".

It does seem that there was a lack of clarity about the arrangement (or it might be just that the HSE has lost its documentation). If things were as loose as you interpret them to be, then no recipient of the funds could be considered to have done anything irregular. Irregularity can arise only if there is some sense of a set of rules to be followed.

Except that, again according to SIPTU, the money never got to the union but was, in their view, secretly siphoned off by individuals working for SIPTU or associated with that union.

You are using loaded language: "siphoned off" connotes people enriching themselves. I have gone as far as using language like "extravagant" and "reckless" to describe how the money seems to have been used, and suggested that those who ran the fund might have usurped SIPTU's function. I think that is as far as one can go at this point while still making fair comment.

It might emerge, as enquiries proceed, that something might emerge which justifies a harsher judgement, but right now there is insufficient evidence to support such a judgement. Without the evidence, making a definitive judgement is prejudicial.

westtip wrote: »

Strange - when I went to school this was called theft.....don't hold your breath for any prosecutions!

And this resposnse to your post underlines my point.

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are using loaded language: "siphoned off" connotes people enriching themselves. I have gone as far as using language like "extravagant" and "reckless" to describe how the money seems to have been used, and suggested that those who ran the fund might have usurped SIPTU's function. I think that is as far as one can go at this point while still making fair comment.

It might emerge, as enquiries proceed, that something might emerge which justifies a harsher judgement, but right now there is insufficient evidence to support such a judgement. Without the evidence, making a definitive judgement is prejudicial.

I don't want to judge the individuals concerned. My purpose is to bring to light what the union itself is saying about events. I suppose "diverted" could have been used instead of "siphoned" but I don't think the overall implication would be different and that implication, if Siptu are to be believed, goes beyond mere extravagance and recklessness.

As to what really went on, I suspect that it will turn out that Siptu aren't as unknowing as they claim to be given the stories that are emerging as to how the money was spent and the number of years this thing has been in operation. There's a story, for example, of someone's pension being paid out of these funds.

The problem in saying that Siptu function in this might have been userped, is that no one knows what SIPTU's function in receiving these funds was supposed to be in the first place. The funds appear to be part of an effort to smooth industrial relations at a time of change in the HSE rather than anything to do with training. A bribe from the taxpayer to senior union officials in other words.

Head The Wall

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are using loaded language: "siphoned off" connotes people enriching themselves. I have gone as far as using language like "extravagant" and "reckless" to describe how the money seems to have been used, and suggested that those who ran the fund might have usurped SIPTU's function. I think that is as far as one can go at this point while still making fair comment.

I understand that you are trying to see things as fairly as possible until the investigation is completed but the whole stinks too much and I for one don't believe that it can be explained away that easily.

I would love to know the purpose of the trip to Savannah, Georgia. It has the second largest St Patricks Day parade in the US after NY, off all the cities in the US why did they pick this one. It doesn't take a genius to speculate what was going on. There is also all the late night taxis which were hardly people coming home from training courses

P. Breathnach

Head The Wall wrote: »

I understand that you are trying to see things as fairly as possible until the investigation is completed

I'm pleased that my agenda is understood. Sometimes I feel a bit beleaguered in these parts.

but the whole stinks too much and I for one don't believe that it can be explained away that easily.

I would love to know the purpose of the trip to Savannah, Georgia. It has the second largest St Patricks Day parade in the US after NY, off all the cities in the US why did they pick this one. It doesn't take a genius to speculate what was going on. There is also all the late night taxis which were hardly people coming home from training courses

I am unreservedly in favour of questions being asked, and people's actions being challenged. That's part of a proper process.

I simply hope that people refrain from making premature judgements, judgements that might be unfair. Let's get the facts before we judge.

Head The Wall

People have attitude because we all know how these things get turned into some soundbites and then get brushed under the carpet.

Thats what irks most people and drives them to make their own judgements. If left to the people in the investigation we will get to know nothing and there will be no repurcussions as per usual e.g. callely situation

rumour

I know lets have a tribunal.....ten-fifteen years from now we'll all know the findings/truth. Then the person , persons responsible can be tried before a court of law. After another few years when its time to go to court...well they get off on sick leave.

Anybody around the age of twenty might think I'm making this up....this is how we do things in Ireland.

maninasia

I prefer the monopoly answer - Go to Jail.

As for tribunals, what a joke..something that has no legal punishment, takes 10 years and whose conclusions are forgotten within a month or two.

For proper managment of the country there justice must be seen to be served. That's where I see the culture of the country taking a wrong turn, nobody is prosecuted and brought to book and most of the population seem to accept this . It goes from the culture of vandalism, violence and social welfare fraud right up to the unions, politicians, planners, developers and bankers.

maninasia

westtip wrote: »

Strange - when I went to school this was called theft.....don't hold your breath for any prosecutions!

If one was to do that in almost any organisation you will be prosecuted and likely jailed.

Essexboy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm pleased that my agenda is understood. Sometimes I feel a bit beleaguered in these parts.



I am unreservedly in favour of questions being asked, and people's actions being challenged. That's part of a proper process.

I simply hope that people refrain from making premature judgements, judgements that might be unfair. Let's get the facts before we judge.

You are beginning to sound like FF and their demand for "due process" every time one of them is enmeshed in some scandal.

SIPTU, the HSE, the Department of Health etc. are "defendants at the bar of public opinion" to quote De Valera. None of them have given convincing explanations for this racket and SIPTU did not even appear before the PAC.

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." - Douglas Adams

Diarmuid

So Siptu are going to return all remaining funds from an account that had nothing to do with them and they knew nothing about. It will be interesting to see how the resident SIPTU apologist spins this one.

kippy

Some very good posts on this thread and while P. Breathnachs aims are admirable, Head The Wall summed it up perfectly.
This will be swept under the carpet. Money (which was never in control of the organisation in the first place) "paid back" - no actual investigation done and no one prosecuted.............I wouldnt mind no one being prosecuted if an investigation was done - having the Gardai involved, but that is not going to happen.
People will get away with this and what will happen from there - people AT ALL LEVELS will think it is okay to do this again......

What signs are we giving to the normal people in this country?
We are a country who plainly tolerate white collar crime and "dodgy dealings".
2+ years after the banking crisis broke we still have no light at the end of the tunnel in relation to the very very illegal activities that were plainly taking place at some of our banks. On an ongoing basis we let our politicians away with the flagrant abuse of an expenses system that is very good to them in the first place. How many in the past few years have avoided public prosecution for defrauding the public purse with a simple, sweep it under the carpet.
More worrying we have accepted Willie O Dea and his questionable practices in Limerick.
At the moment we have an extremely well paid and pampered ex taoseach who has a state car, two drivers, gardai and multiple perks sitting in a cupboard publisising a redtop. This guy is the epitomy of what we should be trying to eradicate in this countries political system. What happens? Fcuk all. Surely he is broaching ethical and potentially financial guideline of the post?
Remember, this guy didnt have a bank account up until a few years ago and cant remember what happened yesterday.
Nevermind the multiple top level staff of public(FAS, CENTRAL BANK) and private(Banking) bodies who get massive "parachute payments", pension rights and indeed in the case of those such as Rody Molloy of FAS, his CAR in payoffs when they are FORCED to leave their post due to GROSS mismanagement/negligence.

People are RIGHTLY sick and TIRED about what gets put under the radar and certain sectors of this society manage to escape with close to murder while the rest of us plainly dont get these chances to get rich from questionable means and if caught dont get the same laws applied.
Is it no wonder we have a culture of cute hoorism and tolerance towards abuse of the various systems available in this country when those at the very top, who are supposed to be the moral guardians of the country get away without any criminal investigations for some of the most immoral and potentially illegal acts?

I've said it before and I will continue to say it, we have a lot of people tired of it, but nothing actually changing, the next scandal will come along in a few days, overshadowing this one, people will moan and complain on this site and in other media but it matters fcuk all.

The only way WE will affect change is to make it abundantly clear to your elected representatives and those looking to be your elected representatives that you will no longer support them if things aren't changed to improve the standards and ethics as well as the investigative power of our police service.

We have too many of these people milking the system anyway, a reduction in politicans and associated staff would be a great starting point, as would a reduction in boards/board members and conflict of interest leglistation right across the public sector.

Anyway, fair play to all on this thread, at least they show they care. Go the next step and show you care directly to an elected representative. All their emails are available should you not want the hassle of approaching them directly.

P. Breathnach

Diarmuid wrote: »

So Siptu are going to return all remaining funds from an account that had nothing to do with them and they knew nothing about. It will be interesting to see how the resident SIPTU apologist spins this one.

kippy wrote: »

Some very good posts on this thread and while P. Breathnachs aims are admirable, Head The Wall summed it up perfectly.
This will be swept under the carpet. Money (which was never in control of the organisation in the first place) "paid back" - no actual investigation done and no one prosecuted.............I wouldnt mind no one being prosecuted if an investigation was done - having the Gardai involved, but that is not going to happen.
People will get away with this and what will happen from there - people AT ALL LEVELS will think it is okay to do this again......

It seems that I am being characterised as a SIPTU apologist. It's not true, but I am not surprised to be seen in such a way.

Not that it matters greatly, but if you consider carefully all that I have said in this thread, you will find that what I have been consistently arguing for is that people be fair. SIPTU has been accused of something; SIPTU denies it; the accusation is treated as proven and the denial disregarded. That is unfair, and that is what I have been challenging.

And Diarmuid's post is exactly in that unfair tradition. Read the piece cited rather than the headline, and you might think the headline does not reflect the facts in a balanced way, and then the tone of Diarmuid's post slants it further.

Can you imagine how it would be treated by the mob assembled here if SIPTU refused to hand the money over?

macannrb

To PB, you have been reasonably fair

however I dont agree that just because SIPTU management say they didn't know about it, that they weren't involved. A small number of people controlled the account, but then again a small number controll all accounts, ie the signatories. When any account is opened proof of the beneficaries must be shown and i assume that this is the case with this account, ie the beneficaries would be SIPTU. Therefore SIPTU or any other organisation should face up to their responsibilities, even if its as a result of very lax financial controls.

When rogue traders take advantage of lax controls in investment banks, its the organisations which go down ie bearings bank etc

Also the amount of money that is left in the account is probably a few quid in very small in relation to the millions that went through it. So their gesture of returning the unspent money is probably only token in the context

deise blue

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems that I am being characterised as a SIPTU apologist. It's not true, but I am not surprised to be seen in such a way.

Not that it matters greatly, but if you consider carefully all that I have said in this thread, you will find that what I have been consistently arguing for that people be fair. SIPTU has been accused of something; SIPTU denies it; the accusation is treated as proven and the denial disregarded. That is unfair, and that is what I have been challenging.

And Diarmuid's post is exactly in that unfair tradition. Read the piece cited rather than the headline, and you might think the headline does not reflect the facts in a balanced way, and then the tone of Diarmuid's post slants it further.

Can you imagine how it would be treated by the mob assembled here if SIPTU refused to hand the money over?

Could'nt agree with you more.

The rush to convict SIPTU prior to the conclusion of the various investigations is both unedifying and speculative.

mrgaa1

why has this story disappeared from newspapers and TV? If it was a government department, a developer, or a political party there'd be war over this.

P. Breathnach

mrgaa1 wrote: »

why has this story disappeared from newspapers and TV? If it was a government department, a developer, or a political party there'd be war over this.

This thread has come to life again because the story was mentioned in today's Irish Times. That's hardly disappearing.

kippy

deise blue wrote: »

Could'nt agree with you more.

The rush to convict SIPTU prior to the conclusion of the various investigations is both unedifying and speculative.

No one is convicting anyone, my point being that no one is likely to be convicted either. Thats the problem. Surely SOMETHING in this who story is extremely fishy........and were a similiar story existing at a lower level of Irish society people would most likely be convicted.

P.B. I do undertand where you are coming from, my point is, this type of thing has happened countless times in the past- nothing has been done about it (see examples) and people will continue to get away with this type of lax behaviour (kind term for it) while no one gets properly investigates and actual prosecutions arent forthcoming from these investigations.

macannrb

deise blue wrote: »

Could'nt agree with you more.

The rush to convict SIPTU prior to the conclusion of the various investigations is both unedifying and speculative.

The same way SIPTU will rush to lash out at the government once they cut social welfare and raise tax on everybody? without considering the government doesn't have money to pay for these things (and a small part of that is their fault)

We all have our right to free speech within reason.

And the odds of a proper investigation occurring, and if that happens the odds of a propper investigation actually yeilding light on what happened and who benefited from this neat little sipty arrangement is slim to none. So really no one will ever be convicted. I think we are all sure of that.

deise blue

macannrb wrote: »

The same way SIPTU will rush to lash out at the government once they cut social welfare and raise tax on everybody? without considering the government doesn't have money to pay for these things (and a small part of that is their fault)

We all have our right to free speech within reason.

And the odds of a proper investigation occurring, and if that happens the odds of a propper investigation actually yeilding light on what happened and who benefited from this neat little sipty arrangement is slim to none. So really no one will ever be convicted. I think we are all sure of that.

All very well but the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise still applies.

As such perhaps it would be better to await the conclusions of the 4 investigations before rushing to judgement.

kippy

deise blue wrote: »

All very well but the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise still applies.

As such perhaps it would be better to await the conclusions of the 4 investigations before rushing to judgement.

Again, you miss the point.
These investigations will lead to nothing. Do you believe any different?
We have a right to comment on these activities, which is what we are doing.
Without investigating ANYTHING there have been some exceptionly strange events in this whole saga, thats what is being commented on. We dont have the power to convict anyone, hence our discussions here are largely irrelevent.
However people are going to be angry when these events are eventualy brushed under a large carpet.

macannrb

deise blue wrote: »

All very well but the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise still applies.



As such perhaps it would be better to await the conclusions of the 4 investigations before rushing to judgement.

I think you missed my point, which is that SIPTU's higher moral authority on cuts to government expenditure and raised in taxes of its members should be put into context of its own negligent behaviour (either taking backhanders or having awfully poor financial controls)

deise blue

kippy wrote: »

Again, you miss the point.
These investigations will lead to nothing. Do you believe any different?
We have a right to comment on these activities, which is what we are doing.
Without investigating ANYTHING there have been some exceptionly strange events in this whole saga, thats what is being commented on. We dont have the power to convict anyone, hence our discussions here are largely irrelevent.
However people are going to be angry when these events are eventualy brushed under a large carpet.

That's where we differ - I believe that the investigations will cast light on these matters , I believe that all comments or judgements are currently taking place in the dark without recourse to all the facts.

kippy

deise blue wrote: »

That's where we differ - I believe that the investigations will cast light on these matters , I believe that all comments or judgements are currently taking place in the dark without recourse to all the facts.

Indeed, casting light is one thing - putting people in jail is another.
I can 100% guarentee that NOONE will do jail time after these investigations.
Thats where the problems lie.
We've had numerous "investigations" before, more light than that from the sun cast on events and people getting away with it.

serfboard

I'm trying to understand this.

A "senior union official" sets up a bank account with the word SIPTU in the title which SIPTU neither know about nor control.

What position do you have to be in to go into a bank and set up a SIPTU account? I mean, if I walk into a bank and tell them I want to set up a SIPTU account, is the bank going to ask for my bone fides? So,

1. What bank is this account in?
2. When was the account set up?
3. What identification/documentation was used to set up this account?
4. How many accounts are there in Irish banks with the words SIPTU in the title?
5. How many of these accounts do SIPTU know about?
6. Why would you, as a senior union official, set up an account with SIPTU in the title and not tell SIPTU about it?

Thing is - if there was one such account, who's to say there isn't more?

macannrb

serfboard wrote: »

I'm trying to understand this.

A "senior union official" sets up a bank account with the word SIPTU in the title which SIPTU neither know about nor control.

What position do you have to be in to go into a bank and set up a SIPTU account? I mean, if I walk into a bank and tell them I want to set up a SIPTU account, is the bank going to ask for my bone fides? So,

1. What bank is this account in?
2. When was the account set up?
3. What identification/documentation was used to set up this account?
4. How many accounts are there in Irish banks with the words SIPTU in the title?
5. How many of these accounts do SIPTU know about?
6. Why would you, as a senior union official, set up an account with SIPTU in the title and not tell SIPTU about it?

Thing is - if there was one such account, who's to say there isn't more?

Also how did the countless bank statements from this account slip through the post in SIPTU?

without the knowledge of those who open post in the organisation? Most companies have controls regardinng the opening of post and who does it

P. Breathnach

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, casting light is one thing - putting people in jail is another.
I can 100% guarentee that NOONE will do jail time after these investigations.
Thats where the problems lie.
We've had numerous "investigations" before, more light than that from the sun cast on events and people getting away with it.

The details of what happened have yet to be established, and you are complaining that nobody will go to jail. That looks to me like prejudice.

The inability or unwillingness of the powers-that-be to deal with misbehaviour is a real problem. We need to improve the way we do things in a number of ways:
clearer lines of responsibility/accountability;
better record-keeping and reporting (more managers, anybody?);
strong and properly-resourced investigation agencies;
a tidying-up of our laws to remove impediments;
and, most of all, the political will to improve things.

The selection of what looks like an easy target, like SIPTU in this case, does not make a worthwhile contribution to addressing the bigger question.

macannrb

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The details of what happened have yet to be established, and you are complaining that nobody will go to jail. That looks to me like prejudice.

Are you suggesting that there is an all but remote possibility that anyone will go to jail for this? If you are then my comment earlier about your views being reasonable should be withdrawn.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The inability or unwillingness of the powers-that-be to deal with misbehaviour is a real problem. We need to improve the way we do things in a number of ways:

We need to address all these things in Ireland, and perhaps this farcical episode can be a way to change how society judges those in power. SIPTU is a very large organisation which many people see in weekly affairs (and paychecks). Holding those accountable in SIPTU could be a turning point.

So why not seize the opportunity to come down harshly on this organisation and set an example for all those who waste Irish tax payers money. Then move onto any other group polictians, tribunals etc etc Route out the wasters and bring Ireland out of ruin.

kippy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The details of what happened have yet to be established, and you are complaining that nobody will go to jail. That looks to me like prejudice.

The inability or unwillingness of the powers-that-be to deal with misbehaviour is a real problem. We need to improve the way we do things in a number of ways:
clearer lines of responsibility/accountability;
better record-keeping and reporting (more managers, anybody?);
strong and properly-resourced investigation agencies;
a tidying-up of our laws to remove impediments;
and, most of all, the political will to improve things.

The selection of what looks like an easy target, like SIPTU in this case, does not make a worthwhile contribution to addressing the bigger question.

The details of what happened will be established in a longwinded and non transparent manner. No one will be help responsible/accountable, no one will go to jail.
Thats not Prejudical, thats a realistic outlook on what will happen based on past instances of similiar misappropriation of funds (which is very obviously what this is)
I want to see someone go to jail, thats prejudical, but its also a correct set of morals. People have done wrong here in this case and indeed others I have spoken about. In a proper society people are punished for doing wrong.
We punish certain sectors of society by letting them off the hook with a massive golden handshake or promotion.......
Thats my problem.

You and others appear to be suggesting that the timing of this and indeed the organisation being "targeted" is questionable and pointing out that this could be an effort to undermine trade unions. Thats also prejudical.
It doesnt matter who does the wrong, the punishment should be the same across the board.

deise blue

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, casting light is one thing - putting people in jail is another.
I can 100% guarentee that NOONE will do jail time after these investigations.
Thats where the problems lie.
We've had numerous "investigations" before, more light than that from the sun cast on events and people getting away with it.

Well we're just going to have to wait until the investigations are concluded to see if any illegalities take place.

Or would you prefer to jail people without proof or trial ?

macannrb

kippy wrote: »

You and others appear to be suggesting that the timing of this and indeed the organisation being "targeted" is questionable and pointing out that this could be an effort to undermine trade unions. Thats also prejudical.
It doesnt matter who does the wrong, the punishment should be the same across the board.

+1 Couldnt agree with you more

deise blue wrote: »

Well we're just going to have to wait until the investigations are concluded to see if any illegalities take place.

Or would you prefer to jail people without proof or trial ?

The odds of any investigations yielding any useful information are so remote that no conviction could be possible. Do you really think SIPTU would hang their senior managers out to dry? I would think its more likely that shredding of relevant documents was done as soon as the account entered public domain.

Therefore since no one can reasonably expect convictions, why not punish the organisation as a whole? a large fine say, restrictions on what they pay their senior managers/CEOs, until they get their house in order

And in the mean time lets question their arguments against government austerity with the same cynicism that this affair reeks off

kippy

deise blue wrote: »

Well we're just going to have to wait until the investigations are concluded to see if any illegalities take place.

Or would you prefer to jail people without proof or trial ?

Can you honestly see anyone doing jail time for anything to do with this charade?

Of course there needs to be proof and a trial. I am making the very valid point that proof and a trial will not be forthcoming here.....

P. Breathnach

kippy wrote: »

... You and others appear to be suggesting that the timing of this and indeed the organisation being "targeted" is questionable and pointing out that this could be an effort to undermine trade unions. Thats also prejudical....

Prejudicial? That's just plain wrong. I never said anything about the timing of this, or its being part of an effort to undermine trade unions.

Never let the facts get in the way.

kippy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Prejudicial? That's just plain wrong. I never said anything about the timing of this, or its being part of an effort to undermine trade unions.

Never let the facts get in the way.

The last line of your previous post would suggest otherwise.

P. Breathnach

kippy wrote: »

The last line of your previous post would suggest otherwise.

Only if misinterpreted.

kippy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Only if misinterpreted.

Apologies, I must have misinterpreted it.

macannrb

It looks like SIPTU are not the only ones who are having trouble with their accounts.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/union-loses-its-auditors-2382984.html?from=dailynews

maninasia

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The details of what happened have yet to be established, and you are complaining that nobody will go to jail. That looks to me like prejudice.

The inability or unwillingness of the powers-that-be to deal with misbehaviour is a real problem. We need to improve the way we do things in a number of ways:
clearer lines of responsibility/accountability;
better record-keeping and reporting (more managers, anybody?);
strong and properly-resourced investigation agencies;
a tidying-up of our laws to remove impediments;
and, most of all, the political will to improve things.

The selection of what looks like an easy target, like SIPTU in this case, does not make a worthwhile contribution to addressing the bigger question.

You're wrong it should start with prosecutions to get people back in line. Do you think ANYTHING of what you wrote above matters a jot? It doesn't until people are seen to be punished for wrongdoing, no matter if it is SIPTU or a banker or a government representative or a town planner.

P. Breathnach

maninasia wrote: »

You're wrong it should start with prosecutions to get people back in line. Do you think ANYTHING of what you wrote above matters a jot? It doesn't until people are seen to be punished for wrongdoing, no matter if it is SIPTU or a banker or a government representative or a town planner.

In what way is it wrong to suggest that nobody should be punished for anything before it is known what actually happened?

In what way is it wrong to suggest ways in which the administration of public funds might be better controlled?

maninasia

My point is you are waffling on like a good government spokesman, when there is no accountability and there is seen to be no accountability there will be no substantial changes. Maybe a slap on the wrist here, a tribunal there, an early retirerment with a golden handshake and we'll leave it as is. Just waffle like all the other benchmarking and croke park agreements etc. When there is no deterrence or punishment for wrongdoing what can you do?
The whole thing stinks to high heaven from collaboration between unions and ministers on trips (eh did anybody actually VOTE for a union to be involved in government?), subsidised joy rides for unions and pay direct from government coffers and appointments to quangos and now this. You know what happens in most organisations when you put their money in personal accounts - Go to Jail. Stinks.

P. Breathnach

maninasia wrote: »

My point is you are waffling on like a good government spokesman...

That's not much of a point. So you say that I am wrong, and won't say in what way?

, when there is no accountability and there is seen to be no accountability there will be no substantial changes. Maybe a slap on the wrist here, a tribunal there, an early retirerment with a golden handshake and we'll leave it as is. Just waffle like all the other benchmarking and croke park agreements etc. When there is no deterrence or punishment for wrongdoing what can you do?
The whole thing stinks to high heaven from collaboration between unions and ministers on trips (eh did anybody actually VOTE for a union to be involved in government?), subsidised joy rides for unions and pay direct from government coffers and appointments to quangos and now this. You know what happens in most organisations when you put their money in personal accounts - Go to Jail. Stinks.

Who's waffling?

maninasia

You don't like the message that your beloved union stinks?
The point is we already know nobody will be punished...we've got two Taoisigh who smell just as bad..nothing ever happened to them. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Apologists like you are the reason why the country is in such a state.

P. Breathnach

maninasia wrote: »

You don't like the message that your beloved union stinks?
The point is we already know nobody will be punished...we've got two Taoisigh who smell just as bad..nothing ever happened to them. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Apologists like you are the reason why the country is in such a state.

Like most participants in this forum, I am here to have conversations about political matters.

You seem to want to have a conversation about me.

Go away.

maninasia

There's always an excuse isn't there...

sceptre

maninasia, as I said in your issued warning, you have two options: discuss the topic or don't use the thread. Personalising the discussion, as you've chosen to do, is not permitted. Kindly read the forum charter before posting again. If you have an issue with this, please send me a PM for clarification.

/mod

SkepticOne

In another interesting twist to the story, apparently a department of health official who was supposed to be on one of these "study" trips funded by the Siptu account continued to clock in for work while the trip was underway:

"While the department's internal audit has yet to be completed, as far as the former Department of Finance representative is concerned, it does not correspond to records in this department."

It said its attendance recording system showed the official 'keyed in' at its Dublin offices during a trip to New York in 2005, a trip to New York the following year, and a trip to Boston in 2007. URL="http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-official-on-nine-trips-paid-for-by-training-fund-2388862.html"]source[/URL

gandalf

SkepticOne wrote: »

In another interesting twist to the story, apparently a department of health official who was supposed to be on one of these "study" trips funded by the Siptu account continued to clock in for work while the trip was underway:

Well if that is true that person should be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. Of course its more than likely going to be a case of "you can't get me I'm part of the union" as usual.

P. Breathnach

gandalf wrote: »

Well if that is true that person should be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. Of course its more than likely going to be a case of "you can't get me I'm part of the union" as usual.

How can you dismiss somebody who is retired?