Privatization

padser12345

Hi all, as response to all the quibbling about who gets paid more or less than the other sector Public or Private. And by and large a perception that Public Service is not functioning or delivering certain objectives both productively and or economically, despite it's Bench Marking implementation.

I am in no way saying the Private Sector is perfect either! As a former Private Sector Employee, I am well aware of the inequalities among Employee's and or agenda's of the Employer's. Just merely examining whether it would be a better model, especially with a more demanding population.

Is there a case to Privatize most of the Public Sector or Parts that would practically benefit the Employee and ultimately the Customer?

My own personal view is, to try something different and put this to rest once and for all - or is even contemplating it, too much to fathom?

Is there any case study analysis or similar efforts in other Countries, I would love to know.

Thanks
padser

Gumbo

What portions in your opinion do you think could be privatised?

padser12345

Do you know what?! I'd really like to see as much as possible. Or at the very least - to instill the notion in the whole Public Sector that, the Public at large are 'shareholders' and accountability is of the utmost importance.

In direct response I'd reckon the Health System first and foremost... after that I could not be quite sure what would be practical.

Stheno

padser12345 wrote: »

Do you know what?! I'd really like to see as much as possible. Or at the very least - to instill the notion in the whole Public Sector that, the Public at large are 'shareholders' and accountability is of the utmost importance.

In direct response I'd reckon the Health System first and foremost... after that I could not be quite sure what would be practical.

Have you heard of TUPE?

Do you understand how that would influence private buyers in terms of their purchasing segments of the public sector if outsourced/privatised?

johnnyskeleton

It would be fairly easy to privatise most quangos. Then their funding could be cut unless they dd something of use. But core state services - police, army, judiciary etc should be kept public.

Then, depending on your political view other services can be cut, mostly health and second and third level education (primary education is a fundamental right in the constitution). However, for many if not most people the privatisation of health and education would cost more than it would save, so they would (I believe) be in favour of retaining these in public hands, with perhaps the privatisation of all elective surgerie. Or other services considered unnecessary.

Vizzy

OP how far do you want to go with this ?
With Health are you advocating "no dough no show" ?
In housing should all all single parents in what is now "local authority" housing pay full economic rent?

Don't get me wrong I'm not opposed to the idea, but I wonder if it could/would work if it was impemented in full,and lets face it, any less is simply retaining the public sector, and I know you don't want that.

markpb

The problem with privatisation is that as soon as you mention it, people immediately assume the worst - that the public sector will leave and the private sector will take over completely. In reality, that's rarely going to happen. Instead, the government will contact out the running of some jobs to company's but still retain control of the cost and method of delivery.

The government temporarily outsourced driving testing to SGS while still controlling the cost and standard expected. They also outsourced the operation of the Luas tramway to Veoilia while still controlling the price of tickes and level of service provided. Both of those seem to have been successful.

But people will ignore all that and instead claim that poor people will die becaus they can't afford to go to hospital or that no bus will serve them because it's not a profitable route.

johnnyskeleton

markpb wrote: »

The problem with privatisation is that as soon as you mention it, people immediately assume the worst - that the public sector will leave and the private sector will take over completely. In reality, that's rarely going to happen. Instead, the government will contact out the running of some jobs to company's but still retain control of the cost and method of delivery.

The government temporarily outsourced driving testing to SGS while still controlling the cost and standard expected. They also outsourced the operation of the Luas tramway to Veoilia while still controlling the price of tickes and level of service provided. Both of those seem to have been successful.

But people will ignore all that and instead claim that poor people will die becaus they can't afford to go to hospital or that no bus will serve them because it's not a profitable route.

Those are more examples of public private partnership than privatisation.

padser12345

Stheno wrote: »

Have you heard of TUPE?

Do you understand how that would influence private buyers in terms of their purchasing segments of the public sector if outsourced/privatised?

I see that it outlines certain directives regards the Undertakings/Transfers of a business. Circumstances also that influence the prospective buyer. It would seem to me that our economic climate would be advantageous to a buyer, insofar as being able to adjust the terms & conditions of parts the business and the Employee salary etc.

padser12345

Vizzy wrote: »

OP how far do you want to go with this ?
With Health are you advocating "no dough no show" ?
In housing should all all single parents in what is now "local authority" housing pay full economic rent?

Don't get me wrong I'm not opposed to the idea, but I wonder if it could/would work if it was impemented in full,and lets face it, any less is simply retaining the public sector, and I know you don't want that.

It's interesting to note on the Health/Medical, in USA, Obama's plight being almost a reversal of an Public perspective . Is it obvious to Obama, that the Social aspect, is of importance at either situation. What degree you socialise as opposed to what degree you privatise. I'd be in favour of (I'm not saying it's practical) Privatise the whole lot, then like Obama, introduce the Social aspect.

padser12345

Having done a small bit of research last night, it would seem to me, that you could pretty much Privatise anything you wanted in a State, albeit entities of National or Public security, etc.

padser12345

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It would be fairly easy to privatise most quangos. Then their funding could be cut unless they dd something of use. But core state services - police, army, judiciary etc should be kept public.

Then, depending on your political view other services can be cut, mostly health and second and third level education (primary education is a fundamental right in the constitution). However, for many if not most people the privatisation of health and education would cost more than it would save, so they would (I believe) be in favour of retaining these in public hands, with perhaps the privatisation of all elective surgerie. Or other services considered unnecessary.

Would it be fair to say that, the wastage that we perceive to be in the current Health system, would loosely translate to the profits of a Private entity?

On the other hand if we actually did pay more for a Private system, is there a case that we would get a better service?

[Jackass]

Just a little anecdote from my walk home yesterday.

Just by the bus depo in Donnybrook, there was a UPC (I believe it was) van pulled up on the footpath. Behind it, a man on his hands and knees reaching into a hole in the ground, feeding in tubing / wiring and at the back of the open van was all the tubing / wiring supplies pulled out and a jackhammer.

I looked into the van to confirm that this man was on his own.

That to me, sums up the difference between the Public and Private sector.

él statutorio

Stheno wrote: »

Have you heard of TUPE?

Do you understand how that would influence private buyers in terms of their purchasing segments of the public sector if outsourced/privatised?

TUPE is a load of b0llix.

I've been TUPE'd a few times. It only guarantees your T's and C's when you've been transferred, not afterwards. That may not be how it's meant to work in theory but in practice it is.

padser12345

[Jackass] wrote: »

Just a little anecdote from my walk home yesterday.

Just by the bus depo in Donnybrook, there was a UPC (I believe it was) van pulled up on the footpath. Behind it, a man on his hands and knees reaching into a hole in the ground, feeding in tubing / wiring and at the back of the open van was all the tubing / wiring supplies pulled out and a jackhammer.

I looked into the van to confirm that this man was on his own.

That to me, sums up the difference between the Public and Private sector.

Do you think he is content to be working by himself & or do you think there are Health/Safety/Security issue's?

RATM

Aren't many prisons, at least Federal ones in the US privatised ? I think I remember reading a piece which claimed one of many of the reasons that the US has one of the highest prison populations in the world (approx. 2.5 million inmates) is because there are vast sums of easy money to be made from the outsourcing of prison security, transport and food.

For private companies being involved in the supply of meals to hundreds of thousands of inmates three times a day every day of the year is huge business and it often involves multi million dollar contracts. And in business terms a prison is like a hotel with 100% occupancy where the guests eat there 3 times a day. Except you don't have to provide the luxuries of a hotel, a prison is the opposite in decor resulting in more saved costs.

For a company running prison specific operations the prisoner is like a cash cow and the more of them the better. That then feeds into lobbying for longer and harsher sentences and a situation where rehabilitation of prisoners is only paid lip service- a private company wants to see the return of time served prisoners as it adds to profit which is in direct conflict with the public appetite to see them not re-offend.

So once they have cut all their costs to the bone the only way to grow profit is to increase the population of prisoners and the sentences they get.

Lobbying in Washington to support the objectives of private prison enterprise is behind closed doors. But we had a sneak peak on a more local level in Pennsylvania in the 'Kids for Cash' scandal whereby a local judge was caught taking bribes from the owner of a private juvenille detention center. He made a deal with the judge to give kids longer sentences so he could fill up his prison long term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

I'm pretty sure there was another case recently where two Texan judges got caught taking bribes from a prison company for a similar deal.

Privitising prisons is proabably a bad idea and what it might save in costs is bore by wider societal problems that come from that saving.

But one part of prison services that could be privatised in Ireland is the transport of prisoners which would save the State a significant cost. At a guess each prisoner in State custody is likely to be transported 3-6 times before sentencing and each trip means plenty of man hours hanging around courts, all at the premium pay that prison officers are on (€30-40 per hour per man) which is vastly more than what a private company could do the same task for.

Also given that the Irish Prison Service have had a string of prisoners escape from them during transport operations over the last 18 months it appears that they're aren't up to the job- there has been at least two cases recently where a prisoner, still bound by handcuffs, out ran a bunch of prisoner officers to make their getaway which doesn't exactly speak well for the fitness and speed of the bunch of prison officers assigned to secure them.

padser12345

él statutorio wrote: »

TUPE is a load of b0llix.

I've been TUPE'd a few times. It only guarantees your T's and C's when you've been transferred, not afterwards. That may not be how it's meant to work in theory but in practice it is.

Did circumstances change, such as a faltering economy, that may have given rise to the original terms, or do you think this TUPE, is otherwise ignored & subsequently abused to favour the Employer?

[Jackass]

padser12345 wrote: »

Do you think he is content to be working by himself & or do you think there are Health/Safety/Security issue's?

I think 2 would be optimum, but maybe his partner called in sick.But it's definitely a big step up from the likes of say Dublin city council, who would close a lane of traffic to fit in the vans and a truck, who would then have 9 lads standing around for 3 days to do the same job.

él statutorio

padser12345 wrote: »

Did circumstances change, such as a faltering economy, that may have given rise to the original terms, or do you think this TUPE, is otherwise ignored & subsequently abused to favour the Employer?

Circumstances changed in regard the world and irish economies but I feel it favours the employer and it's nothing more than a sop to the employee.

padser12345

[Jackass] wrote: »

I think 2 would be optimum, but maybe his partner called in sick.But it's definitely a big step up from the likes of say Dublin city council, who would close a lane of traffic to fit in the vans and a truck, who would then have 9 lads standing around for 3 days to do the same job.

But here is the thing, how do we know whether or not they are doing the same job! We could sit for hours and be anecdotal, as to who does what or what we see. All I know from readings over the years is that for some reason or other Private entities are more efficient than Public one's, is it leadership, attitude, pay, job security?

padser12345

él statutorio wrote: »

Circumstances changed in regards the world and irish economies but I feel it favours the employer and it's nothing more than a sop to the employee.

Are you in a Union?

padser12345

That's the most blatant abuse of power you could get. I'm intrigued though as to the lack of Counsel for the Kid's initially!

It's a good point, how would you stop Prisoner's becoming a commodity? The U.S free-market at it's worst - no doubt!

I suppose like our "Clamper's"....you might see entrepreneurship in the form of greedy businessmen waiting to pounce when a crime is committed!:)

[Jackass]

padser12345 wrote: »

But here is the thing, how do we know whether or not they are doing the same job! We could sit for hours and be anecdotal, as to who does what or what we see. All I know from readings over the years is that for some reason or other Private entities are more efficient than Public one's, is it leadership, attitude, pay, job security?

It's accountability.

You will never see any public sector working as efficiently as say one man to one job. No body is accountable as there's no posting profits, no board of directors to be fired for running at such a loss, it's all subsidized by the Government and hence why even monopolies in Ireland such as Bus and Rail can't make a profit and run at massive losses.

The old retort is that they run non-profitable routes in transport for example, but there are very few if any non-profitable routes in the country that a private sector company wouldn't make money at.

Also, you look at departmental budgets. If your department has a budget of 100 million, but you work really really hard and efficiently and only spend 80 million, your budget next year will be 80 million - this means you have to work hard and efficiently EVERY year - there is no incentive to preform at even a fraction of what would be an acceptable level in the private sector, and what you end up with (ironically) is people getting paid twice as much in the public sector compared to someone doing the same in the private sector, and doing half the work.

It's all about accountability.

(and I know there are people in the civil service who will say they work hard and I'm sure they do, but there can be no argument over the mass inefficiencies of a civil service)

Warden13

[Quote=[Jackass];80979564]

padser12345 wrote: »

But here is the thing, how do we know whether or not they are doing the same job! We could sit for hours and be anecdotal, as to who does what or what we see. All I know from readings over the years is that for some reason or other Private entities are more efficient than Public one's, is it leadership, attitude, pay, job security?

It's accountability.

You will never see any public sector working as efficiently as say one man to one job. No body is accountable as there's no posting profits, no board of directors to be fired for running at such a loss, it's all subsidized by the Government and hence why even monopolies in Ireland such as Bus and Rail can't make a profit and run at massive losses.

The old retort is that they run non-profitable routes in transport for example, but there are very few if any non-profitable routes in the country that a private sector company wouldn't make money at.

Also, you look at departmental budgets. If your department has a budget of 100 million, but you work really really hard and efficiently and only spend 80 million, your budget next year will be 80 million - this means you have to work hard and efficiently EVERY year - there is no incentive to preform at even a fraction of what would be an acceptable level in the private sector, and what you end up with (ironically) is people getting paid twice as much in the public sector compared to someone doing the same in the private sector, and doing half the work.

It's all about accountability.

(and I know there are people in the civil service who will say they work hard and I'm sure they do, but there can be no argument over the mass inefficiencies of a civil service)[/Quote]
You are right it's down to the bottom line of profit and of course you are right. Here is an idea get all the detective Garda and the community Garda and national drug squad and the garda who protect the vulnerable and get them to stop every thing they are doing so they can hand out fines to increase their profit margins that would fix the country recession over

[Jackass]

You're completely missing the point. How about we get public sector administration workers who are in completely inefficient departments and move them to Garda back office spots so we can have less Garda scribbling out notes with their pencils and get more of them out on the street.

Of course, this would require productivity from the admin workers in the overstaffed massive budget departments to be productive and to get work done in a reasonable time frame with a reasonable budget and reasonable staff levels, all of which is not possible.

Also, if our Goernment service industries that hold monopolies could make a profit, that would mean more money for the Government to invest in hospitals, infrastructure, policing etc.

Sleepy

Privatise the functions rather than the organisations:

We have 29 different offices doing payroll for Council staff, 29 HR departments, 29 accounts payable apartments, 29 rates/water/PEL collection teams and often one of each) etc. Outsourcing this would be both easy (logistically, not politically) and effective in reducing the cost of the councils.

I'd suggest merging many departments or organisations could generate huge savings too (once those made redundant by such mergers were actually let go as redundant and not simply kept on for the sake of "industrial relations" or bought off with overly generous early retirement packages).