Irish Water

mariaalice

Rightwing wrote: »

Great in theory, dreadful in practice. You'd end up with a situation where the directors would be on €500K+ , who in turn for that would bury their head in the sand.

If that is the case how do they run large hospital trusts in the UK, there are different ways of doing things if your look around.

From Wikipedia.

Foundation trusts are considered, by some, mutual structures akin to co-operatives, where local people, patients and staff can become members and governors and hold the Trust to account

mariaalice

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Um, semi-state bodies have a board and a CEO and are accountable to the shareholders, the government.

I know that but what I am talking about is different more akin to a charity with out the charity bit.

Rightwing

mariaalice wrote: »

If that is the case how do they run large hospital trusts in the UK, there are different ways of doing things if your look around.

From Wikipedia.

Foundation trusts are considered, by some, mutual structures akin to co-operatives, where local people, patients and staff can become members and governors and hold the Trust to account

The culture in this country is all wrong.

I doubt for instance you will find in the UK,a city mayor in a city the size of Cork the earning more than the Spanish PM...eh?

Rightwing

mariaalice wrote: »

I know that but what I am talking about is different more akin to a charity with out the charity bit.

You'd like another CRC...Angela Kerins type scenario ?

mariaalice

Rightwing wrote: »

The culture in this country is all wrong.

I doubt for instance you will find in the UK,a city mayor in a city the size of Cork the earning more than the Spanish PM...eh?

The Irish water trust pay structure would be similar to any shareholder owned utility company thats the point I am making it would be run in the same manor as a shareholder owned utility company,( Anglian water for example ) so I am sure the CEO would be paid the going rate. All the assets ect would be retained by the not for profit holding company/trust for the general good.

Phoebas

Rightwing wrote: »

You'd like another CRC...Angela Kerins type scenario ?

You see the word 'charity' and immediately make a comparison with the CRC

Rightwing

mariaalice wrote: »

The Irish water trust pay structure would be similar to any shareholder owned utility company thats the point I am making it would be run in the same manor as a shareholder owned utility company,( Anglian water for example ) so I am sure the CEO would be paid the going rate. All the assets ect would be retained by the not for profit holding company/trust for the general good.

Wouldn't work here. Give me 1 example of it in Ireland.

They simply wouldn't accept it. May change the culture for other semi states & PS, and that wouldn't go down well. If ever there was a country for privatisation, this is it.

FreudianSlippers

mariaalice wrote: »

I know that but what I am talking about is different more akin to a charity with out the charity bit.

But they're not like a charity - they must be run like a private company to maximise profit and reduce costs.

Rightwing

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But they're not like a charity - they must be run like a private company to maximise profit and reduce costs.

How do you think the company should be run (in an ideal way) ?

mariaalice

Rightwing wrote: »

Wouldn't work here. Give me 1 example of it in Ireland.

They simply wouldn't accept it. May change the culture for other semi states & PS, and that wouldn't go down well. If ever there was a country for privatisation, this is it.

I don't you are getting my point it would have noting to do with the semi state it would be a new company... Irish water trust.. and to make you happy the legalisation could explicitly sate that the pay structure was not to be the same as any public owned utility and was to be based on best practice in private industry including the dreaded performance related bonus and non renewal of contract of the board of directors if they did deliver on the agreed services levels.

Rightwing

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't you are getting my point it would have noting to do with the semi state it would be a new company... Irish water trust.. and to make you happy the legalisation could explicitly sate that the pay structure was not to be the same as any public owned utility and was to be based on best practice in private industry including the dreaded performance related bonus and non renewal of contract of the board of directors if they did deliver on the agreed services levels.

Maybe.

I don't know a lot about the UK utility companies apart from a shareholder perspective, UU and Severn, and they are well run companies.

mariaalice

Rightwing wrote: »

How do you think the company should be run (in an ideal way) ?

The same way as Anglian water or any other privately run utility company is run.

The ownership and running of the company would be split in to two.

The ownership of the company would remain in public ownership through a trust or not for profit company. The actually running of the company would be completely privatised.

FreudianSlippers

Rightwing wrote: »

How do you think the company should be run (in an ideal way) ?

I would privatise it entirely and keep rates controlled by the CER like it is done in the UK. You have geographic monopolies, but they are efficient and prices cannot be put up through the roof.

mariaalice

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would privatise it entirely and keep rates controlled by the CER like it is done in the UK. You have geographic monopolies, but they are efficient and prices cannot be put up through the roof.

You would still get the foaming at the mouth out rage that the CEO was getting paid 500k or what ever.

I can see the headlines now,... CEO of new privatised water company paid 500k! while mother of 6 is threatened with disconnection for not paying water charges.

FreudianSlippers

mariaalice wrote: »

You would still get the foaming at the mouth out rage that the CEO was getting paid 500k or what ever.

I can see the headlines now,... CEO of new privatised water company paid 500k! while mother of 6 is threatened with disconnection for not paying water charges.

Find me a competent CEO that will do it for less than the going rate in either the public or private sector and I'll accept this criticism.

mariaalice

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Find me a competent CEO that will do it for less than the going rate in either the public or private sector and I'll accept this criticism.

I am not criticising you I think most of the time they deserve the money, I am making the point that no matter how it is done you will get outrage of some sort, at least in my system the public provided/owned assets stay in public ownership.

Rightwing

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would privatise it entirely and keep rates controlled by the CER like it is done in the UK. You have geographic monopolies, but they are efficient and prices cannot be put up through the roof.

I would agree.

Perhaps in an environment with a different culture (perhaps scandinavian countries), then keep it in public hands.

Jolly Red Giant

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would privatise it entirely and keep rates controlled by the CER like it is done in the UK. You have geographic monopolies, but they are efficient and prices cannot be put up through the roof.

This is a load of b*llocks

To start with Thatcher subsidised the privatised water companies to the tune of £5billion.

Despite this - in the first ten years of operation water charges increased by between 42% - 135%

During the same period profits jumped by between 133% - 1250%

Several reports have been published that show that the privatised water companies have endangered public health in orðr to boost profits. The privatised water companies have failed to reduce leakages and repair the distribution network because it is not profitable.

Between 2009-2011 water companies paid out over £3.3billion in dividends but only paid approximate £15million in corporation tax. Indeed Thames Valley got a tax rebate of £8million in 2012.

Next year water charges are expected to increase by between 10% - 20% to in excess of £500 per year.

Phoebas

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Next year water charges are expected to increase by between 10% - 20% to in excess of £500 per year.

Source for that (from the CER if possible - they're the ones who set prices)?

creedp

Phoebas wrote: »

Source for that (from the CER if possible - they're the ones who set prices)?

Were you happy with the rest of the information?

FreudianSlippers

creedp wrote: »

Were you happy with the rest of the information?

No, it was nonsense...

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is a load of b*llocks

To start with Thatcher subsidised the privatised water companies to the tune of £5billion.

Despite this - in the first ten years of operation water charges increased by between 42% - 135%

During the same period profits jumped by between 133% - 1250%

Several reports have been published that show that the privatised water companies have endangered public health in orðr to boost profits. The privatised water companies have failed to reduce leakages and repair the distribution network because it is not profitable.

Between 2009-2011 water companies paid out over £3.3billion in dividends but only paid approximate £15million in corporation tax. Indeed Thames Valley got a tax rebate of £8million in 2012.

Next year water charges are expected to increase by between 10% - 20% to in excess of £500 per year.

I'd like to see your sources on this. Firstly, OFWAT controls the prices for water; they are a non-ministerial government department - your gripe is with the government, not the private water utilities. So, mega failure there at the first hurdle.

Secondly, according to the FT, the average bill in the UK is £388 in 2013-2014 compared to £236 in 1989 (when adjusted for inflation) which is only a 64% increase - far less than the 135% you plucked out of thin air.

Thirdly, following OFWAT's 2014 review, they published draft determinations (the final publication isn't due until December which will set out the prices for 2015-2020):

The draft price controls for all 18 companies, if implemented, would result in average bills for water and wastewater customers in 2015-20 that are 5% lower than in 2010-15 in real terms.

Finally, as for subsidisation, as I posted earlier in the other Irish Water thread, an estimated 30-50% of water costs in OECD countries are subsidised by taxpayers, amounting to between US$42-47 billion worth of subsidies per annum.

Jolly Red Giant

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, it was nonsense

Really

I'd like to see your sources on this.

http://www.psiru.org/reports/2001-02-W-UK-over.doc

your gripe is with the government, not the private water utilities. So, mega failure there at the first hurdle.

Government does not exist in a vacuum - the Thatcher government represented the interests of the rich elites (just like FG/LP here) - The British government privatised water in the UK in order to boost private profit at the expense public services while dumping extra costs on working class people.

Finally, as for subsidisation, as I posted earlier in the other Irish Water thread, an estimated 30-50% of water costs in OECD countries are subsidised by taxpayers, amounting to between US$42-47 billion worth of subsidies per annum.

and this goes to show that the rich elites and their political lapdogs will use public money to subsidise private profit.

Rightwing

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Really


http://www.psiru.org/reports/2001-02-W-UK-over.doc


Government does not exist in a vacuum - the Thatcher government represented the interests of the rich elites (just like FG/LP here) - The British government privatised water in the UK in order to boost private profit at the expense public services while dumping extra costs on working class people.


and this goes to show that the rich elites and their political lapdogs will use public money to subsidise private profit.

Not so - you should pay less taxes once these are privatised. The main gripe people here have is, all the services (refuse/water/) are being privatised, and the costs/taxes (household charge) are going up. I fail to see the benefit of IW remaining in public hands under that scenario.

FreudianSlippers

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Really


http://www.psiru.org/reports/2001-02-W-UK-over.doc


Government does not exist in a vacuum - the Thatcher government represented the interests of the rich elites (just like FG/LP here) - The British government privatised water in the UK in order to boost private profit at the expense public services while dumping extra costs on working class people.


and this goes to show that the rich elites and their political lapdogs will use public money to subsidise private profit.

So you selectively misquoted an academic paper (failing to use "real" values adjusted for inflation), purposely focusing on the concept of subsidies which I don't disagree with. However, subsidies are necessary and the norm in OECD countries.

Phoebas

creedp wrote: »

Were you happy with the rest of the information?

I definitely wouldn't be taking the subject of 'Thatcher era water privatisation and it's longer term consequences' as my specialist subject on Mastermind, so I can't say if I'm happy with it or not.

I wasn't happy with the claim that: 'Next year water charges are expected to increase by between 10% - 20% to in excess of £500 per year' and I often find that where there is some bit of bull**** or spin, you're sure to find more in the proximity.

creedp

Phoebas wrote: »

I definitely wouldn't be taking the subject of 'Thatcher era water privatisation and it's longer term consequences' as my specialist subject on Mastermind, so I can't say if I'm happy with it or not.

I wasn't happy with the claim that: 'Next year water charges are expected to increase by between 10% - 20% to in excess of £500 per year' and I often find that where there is some bit of bull**** or spin, you're sure to find more in the proximity.

The reason I asked is that many people blindly support the public or private provision of a service purely on the basis of their ideologic preferences. The reality is that there are flaws in both camps and the statement that the privitisation of the water supply will inevitably be wholly positive is too simplisitc. Replacing a public monopoly with a private monopoly does not always go well unless the private one is very well regulated. Given that the Irish public transport regulator sees fit to increase some fares by over 20% and that fares have increased by up to 40% in 2 years may suggest that regulation may not necessarily encourge an organisation to minimise price increases - in my view that would apply equally to public and private organisations although its possible that the private organisation would seek to reduce costs in order to increase profitability rather than reduce prices while the public organisation would simply avoid reducing costs. At the end of the day its the same result for the beleagured customer.

Phoebas

creedp wrote: »

The reason I asked is that many people blindly support the public or private provision of a service purely on the basis of their ideologic preferences. The reality is that there are flaws in both camps and the statement that the privitisation of the water supply will inevitably be wholly positive is too simplisitc. Replacing a public monopoly with a private monopoly does not always go well unless the private one is very well regulated. Given that the Irish public transport regulator sees fit to increase some fares by over 20% and that fares have increased by up to 40% in 2 years may suggest that regulation may not necessarily encourge an organisation to minimise price increases - in my view that would apply equally to public and private organisations although its possible that the private organisation would seek to reduce costs in order to increase profitability rather than reduce prices while the public organisation would simply avoid reducing costs. At the end of the day its the same result for the beleagured customer.

I don't have strong views on the merits of privatising water services.
I'd generally lean towards privatisation but its complicated for water services where there are likely to be a just one or a small number of private monopolies on the infrastructure side, large amounts of regulation and ongoing state subventions messing with the market.

I could see it work on the billing side, with various operators bundling water with various other utilities as is the case with gas and electricity (and phone, broadband, tv ...).
Anyway, it's all probably at least a couple of election cycles away.

Jolly Red Giant

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you selectively misquoted an academic paper (failing to use "real" values adjusted for inflation), purposely focusing on the concept of subsidies which I don't disagree with. However, subsidies are necessary and the norm in OECD countries.

No I didn't and no I didn't.

Water Privatisation has been a disaster in the UK (and in many other countries around the world) - it would be a similar disaster here.

Allowing private conglomerates to control vital natural resources is tantamount to allowing a sadist grab you by the balls, squeeze them like a vice and then you say 'no problem - don't we all know it is much better for you to be doing this than me'

Rightwing

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No I didn't and no I didn't.

Water Privatisation has been a disaster in the UK (and in many other countries around the world) - it would be a similar disaster here.

Allowing private conglomerates to control vital natural resources is tantamount to allowing a sadist grab you by the balls, squeeze them like a vice and then you say 'no problem - don't we all know it is much better for you to be doing this than me'

And I suppose we got a first class lesson from the likes of Aer Lingus why keeping every public is the only way. Those greedy, unscrupulous shareholders. :rolleyes:

chopper6

Rightwing wrote: »

And I suppose we got a first class lesson from the likes of Aer Lingus why keeping every public is the only way. Those greedy, unscrupulous shareholders. :rolleyes:

After the privatisation of Eircom went so wondeerfully for everybody :rolleyes:

Rightwing

chopper6 wrote: »

After the privatisation of Eircom went so wondeerfully for everybody :rolleyes:

Went well for the employees anyway who received around €100K on average, but what else would you expect when someone like Harney was involved. But with privatisation, the huge bills the consumer received went, and so did eircom. Another unviable, bloated organisation found out once it faced competiton.

Jolly Red Giant

Rightwing wrote: »

And I suppose we got a first class lesson from the likes of Aer Lingus why keeping every public is the only way. Those greedy, unscrupulous shareholders. :rolleyes:

What the hell does 'every public' mean - If you want to try and make a smart comment at least make it coherent.

Jolly Red Giant

Rightwing wrote: »

Went well for the employees anyway who received around €100K on average, but what else would you expect when someone like Harney was involved. But with privatisation, the huge bills the consumer received went, and so did eircom. Another unviable, bloated organisation found out once it faced competiton.

There is actually a load of b*llocks about what the Eircom workers got - the real winners of the Eircom privatisation were the hedgefunds (like the one mixed up with O'Reilly) who have repeatedly made €billions from floating and refloating Eircom (and the chancers who were on the Board who have lined their pockets with seven figure sums).

Rightwing

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There is actually a load of b*llocks about what the Eircom workers got - the real winners of the Eircom privatisation were the hedgefunds (like the one mixed up with O'Reilly) who have repeatedly made €billions from floating and refloating Eircom (and the chancers who were on the Board who have lined their pockets with seven figure sums).

Little artice here on the nice loot the workers made:

Nor should anyone underestimate the role of the workers themselves in contributing to the slow collapse of the organisation. Back in 1998, the government set up an employee share ownership trust (ESOT), which was designed to protect the interests of Eircom workers as privatisation approached.
It was highly effective in this regard, but it also had the bizarre consequence of transforming a small group of public sector employees into financial buccaneers, who have profited hugely from the destruction of their company.
When Eircom floated, workers got a 14.9% stake for an average price of €1.70 per share — a fraction of the €3.90 that the public paid. Not content with making this killing, Valentia sweet-talked the ESOT into accepting its calamitous 2001 bid, which saw the employees take control of 29.9% of the company.
The 12,500 members of the ESOT — most of whom no longer work for the company — have received more than €770m since Eircom’s privatisation in 1999.

That didn't leave a lot for the taxpayer, eh?

FreudianSlippers

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

No I didn't and no I didn't.

You're telling me that you used adjusted "real" figures and still got an increase of 135% (or thereabouts, can't be bothered to go back and check)? Impossible.

You're quoting from a Canadian research paper which is more focused on subsidisation of water services - clearly biased from the start. I'll take my figures directly from the horses mouth: the regulator.

Water Privatisation has been a disaster in the UK (and in many other countries around the world) - it would be a similar disaster here.

That's your opinion. I don't see anyone in the US complaining about an effectively fully private system.

Allowing private conglomerates to control vital natural resources is tantamount to allowing a sadist grab you by the balls, squeeze them like a vice and then you say 'no problem - don't we all know it is much better for you to be doing this than me'

All well and good points when you totally ignore the fact that prices are regulated and set by a government regulator.

antoobrien

Rightwing wrote: »

The 12,500 members of the ESOT — most of whom no longer work for the company — have received more than €770m since Eircom’s privatisation in 1999.

Does this take into account the fact that the ESOP/ESOT took over the running of the company pension scheme in 1999?

Rightwing wrote: »

That didn't leave a lot for the taxpayer, eh?

The taxpayer didn't get a bad deal, the money raised from the sale of Eircom went into the NPRF.

golfwallah

Irish Water have started advertising for a Data Protection Manager - months after sending demands for PPS numbers from their customers:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/search-for-irish-water-data-boss-begins-295584.html

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in how this organisation is being run, does it?

golfwallah

antoobrien wrote: »

Does this take into account the fact that the ESOP/ESOT took over the running of the company pension scheme in 1999?

As far as I know, eircom has a number of DB and DC pension schemes - all run by trustees, not the ESOP/ESOT.

antoobrien

golfwallah wrote: »

As far as I know, eircom has a number of DB and DC pension schemes - all run by trustees, not the ESOP/ESOT.

Seen any remittance slips?

You are correct in one thing, there are are several pensions schemes, ranging from the PS (not sure when they actually stopped signing people up to that one, but there are people still working that were hired by the P&T) to full DC.

Godge

golfwallah wrote: »

Irish Water have started advertising for a Data Protection Manager - months after sending demands for PPS numbers from their customers:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/search-for-irish-water-data-boss-begins-295584.html

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in how this organisation is being run, does it?

Maybe the other guy left yesterday after getting fed up with silly enquiries about PPSN numbers.

Rightwing

antoobrien wrote: »

Does this take into account the fact that the ESOP/ESOT took over the running of the company pension scheme in 1999?



The taxpayer didn't get a bad deal, the money raised from the sale of Eircom went into the NPRF.

Would have been better if employees didn't get such an outragous sum, and to crown it, it was tax free :rolleyes:

Of course selling the mobile license to Vodafone was as dense as you get & greatly contributed to Eircom's demise.

So, if IW is to be privatised, some lessons should be learnt. Whether they would be, I'd have my doubts.

golfwallah

antoobrien wrote: »

Seen any remittance slips?

You are correct in one thing, there are are several pensions schemes, ranging from the PS (not sure when they actually stopped signing people up to that one, but there are people still working that were hired by the P&T) to full DC.

Remittance slips are produced by the executive of an organisation (dealing with day to day operations), as opposed to the board of trustees (responsible for governance, policy, etc.).

I’ve looked at a few articles online and I think you may be confusing the fact that some directors of eircom’s (now defunct) ESOT were also trustees of some of their pension funds. But as there are other pension trustees, this does not mean that these pension funds were being run by the ESOT.

golfwallah

Godge wrote: »

Maybe the other guy left yesterday after getting fed up with silly enquiries about PPSN numbers.

This kind of flippant remark illustrates precisely why members of the public are concerned about the potential for their personal data to be misused by an organisation like Irish Water.

What you regard as "silly" is not seen in the same way by either the general public or by the Data Protection Commissioner, who has issued very strict rules around the handling and security of personal data:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/responsibilities/3bii.htm&CatID=54&m=y

Maybe the "need" for PPS numbers should have been thought through more thoroughly by IW in the first place. And, if such personal data were still needed, then the reason for requiring it and data protection implications should have been worked out and communicated properly to customers from the outset.

Instead, what we have is a half baked process whereby personal data has and is being collected, whereas the requirements for its protection seem to be getting worked out after the event.

I may be wrong but the potential for a really big cock up in this area seems to be looming - only time will tell!

Rightwing

golfwallah wrote: »

This kind of flippant remark illustrates precisely why members of the public are concerned about the potential for their personal data to be misused by an organisation like Irish Water.

What you regard as "silly" is not seen in the same way by either the general public or by the Data Protection Commissioner, who has issued very strict rules around the handling and security of personal data:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/responsibilities/3bii.htm&CatID=54&m=y

Maybe the "need" for PPS numbers should have been thought through more thoroughly by IW in the first place. And, if such personal data were still needed, then the reason for requiring it and data protection implications should have been worked out and communicated properly to customers from the outset.

Instead, what we have is a half baked process whereby personal data has and is being collected, whereas the requirements for its protection seem to be getting worked out after the event.

I may be wrong but the potential for a really big cock up in this area seems to be looming - only time will tell!

A national disgrace.

A blatant attempt to bully the people as they assumed they have the monoply. Sums up the PS in many ways.

Godge

golfwallah wrote: »

This kind of flippant remark illustrates precisely why members of the public are concerned about the potential for their personal data to be misused by an organisation like Irish Water.

What you regard as "silly" is not seen in the same way by either the general public or by the Data Protection Commissioner, who has issued very strict rules around the handling and security of personal data:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/responsibilities/3bii.htm&CatID=54&m=y

Maybe the "need" for PPS numbers should have been thought through more thoroughly by IW in the first place. And, if such personal data were still needed, then the reason for requiring it and data protection implications should have been worked out and communicated properly to customers from the outset.

Instead, what we have is a half baked process whereby personal data has and is being collected, whereas the requirements for its protection seem to be getting worked out after the event.

I may be wrong but the potential for a really big cock up in this area seems to be looming - only time will tell!

They are legally entitled to your PPS number, it was legislated for.

What use is your PPS number to anyone, it is far better for marketing companies to have your email, phone and home address which most people give away all the time on the internet than your PPS number.

But most people don't realise that.

golfwallah

Unfortunately for the consumer, government chose the quick and dirty coercive approach to rushing through legislation for Irish Water, without much debate, for example:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-water-s-pps-demand-was-pushed-through-after-two-minute-debate-at-d%C3%A1il-subcommittee-1.1982418?page=1

Also unfortunately for consumers, it seems to me that Irish Water has also been in a rush to “do its master’s bidding” in billing their “customers” for water – throwing the baby out with the bathwater as regards modern business techniques, let alone any display of independent thought.

In point of fact, Irish Water has become a byword for how not to communicate with customers:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/smallbusiness/small-business-column-communicating-with-customers-294145.html

and

http://www.mkc.ie/blog/irish-waters-man-overboard/

Meanwhile, what we hear from Brendan Howlin, Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, are platitudes about how senior people in the public service will be held accountable for their performance!

To our political leaders, I guess, orders are orders and blind obedience is more important than independent thought and business competency! Nothing much seems to have changed since the last administration - still muddling through, hoping the spin will work!

ffactj

So is this €100 tax credit going to be for EACH tax payer in the house paying their own share of water charges or just per household.

A group of people in an estate near me got a cement mixer a couple of weeks ago and poured wet concrete into all of the meters on the road.
IW had vans out jack hammering it out and putting new meters in.
Last night more concrete went in in top of them.

I gotta say, i never laughed so much. Wonder how long before IW give up digging the concrete out.

Rightwing

ffactj wrote: »

So is this €100 tax credit going to be for EACH tax payer in the house paying their own share of water charges or just per household.

A group of people in an estate near me got a cement mixer a couple of weeks ago and poured wet concrete into all of the meters on the road.
IW had vans out jack hammering it out and putting new meters in.
Last night more concrete went in in top of them.

I gotta say, i never laughed so much. Wonder how long before IW give up digging the concrete out.

1 taxpayer.

Where was that?

barneystinson

ffactj wrote: »

So is this €100 tax credit going to be for EACH tax payer in the house paying their own share of water charges or just per household.

A group of people in an estate near me got a cement mixer a couple of weeks ago and poured wet concrete into all of the meters on the road.
IW had vans out jack hammering it out and putting new meters in.
Last night more concrete went in in top of them.

I gotta say, i never laughed so much. Wonder how long before IW give up digging the concrete out.

Yeah that's hilarious, if you're not a taxpayer... :rolleyes:

Cuttlefish

aliveandkicking wrote: »

The same as who is paying their wages now while they're employed by local authorities - you and me. The point I'm trying to make is they are already public sector employees and no matter what you do with them now the taxpayer still has to pay for them. If they stay with local authorities they get redeployed to other jobs, if they get taken on by irish water they continue doing what they currently do, if they get made redundant the taxpayer is liable for their redundancy payements and subsequent social welfare claims. There is no quick easy fix.

If there was no Irish Water set up the status quo would continue and would go on forever with the inefficient 4000 staff providing water services. Setting up Irish Water can only be a good thing efficiency wise but it will take time.

a GOOD thing?
You are having a laugh!!

They gave themselves 9% pay rise for a "could do better" rating

They employed their buddies from previous jobs, cronies

They used a 5 star hotel in Cork as a premises - Lording it

You have your head in the sand, this entity is a junket for people with contacts and not a good thing.