To all the right wingers on here

Godge

Count Dooku wrote: »

Simple, if you will remove "jobs for life" entitlement, then managers will have more power to keep only best of best and will be able to clear public service from deadwood. As result public services can be smaller, but more efficient and will be capable to deliver the same level of services with less staff, which can be even paid more than now

The level of silliness here is incredible.

You cannot just remove deadwood, either in the public sector or the private sector. While small firms can get away with behaving outside of employment law, once you have larger organisations, you must have procedures and fairness.

The idea that by waving a magic wand, you can suddenly have heaps of non-performing public sector workers on the dole queue is just out of touch with the reality of modern employment law (which applies both in the public and private sector).

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure about that. These guys got over 10k each for getting fired:

A butler got 40k after being dismissed from a country manor house in Wicklow.

An architect gor nearly 38k when unfairly dismissed in a situation where a project fell through (i.e. there was no work for him).

But hey, let's pretend that we can fire thousands of so-called non-performing public sector employees.

realitykeeper

Much as I abhor violence I cannot bring myself to denounce the man who hit Bertie Ahern on the head with the crutch. On the contrary I for one wish to nominate the man with the crutch for person of the year award. If Bertie`s assailant were to win such an award it would send a message to the political establishment that there is plenty more where the crutch came from and they`ll get theirs if they do a bertie on the economy.

Going Forward

Frank Black wrote: »

OK, you've convinced me with evidence that strong.
Privatisation is bad.
Case closed.

You'd say we've done really well out of the free market model then?:rolleyes:

Count Dooku

Godge wrote: »

The level of silliness here is incredible.

You cannot just remove deadwood, either in the public sector or the private sector. While small firms can get away with behaving outside of employment law, once you have larger organisations, you must have procedures and fairness.

The idea that by waving a magic wand, you can suddenly have heaps of non-performing public sector workers on the dole queue is just out of touch with the reality of modern employment law (which applies both in the public and private sector).

There is no need to remove deadwood in private sector, because it will unite into trade unions and then destroy own company
So company with less deadwood will always win, but you cannot do it in public sector, because it often single supplier of important services. Privatisation will create competition and will wipe out those companies who has more incompetent and lazy workers(unless state will intervene, like it was in case with banks)

chopper6

Count Dooku wrote: »

There is no need to remove deadwood in private sector, because it will unite into trade unions and then destroy own company

Huh?

Godge

Count Dooku wrote: »

There is no need to remove deadwood in private sector, because it will unite into trade unions and then destroy own company
So company with less deadwood will always win, but you cannot do it in public sector, because it often single supplier of important services. Privatisation will create competition and will wipe out those companies who has more incompetent and lazy workers(unless state will intervene, like it was in case with banks)

Completely nutty post.

Can you give me a single real-life example from the last ten years to back up this nonsense?

It is all very well living in a pretend world where private sector employers and employees are all marvellous hard-working contributors to the economy but it is not reality.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

Completely nutty post.

Can you give me a single real-life example from the last ten years to back up this nonsense?

It is all very well living in a pretend world where private sector employers and employees are all marvellous hard-working contributors to the economy but it is not reality.

The oil refinery in Scotland that closed a few months back.

Jawgap

antoobrien wrote: »

The oil refinery in Scotland that closed a few months back.

The Ineos refinery at Grangemouth? That's still open and operating.

Plus, you don't suppose for one minute that the companies who own it were using their dominant position as Scotland's only refinery (and which provides around 70% of the country's fuel) to screw a better deal for their shareholders at the expense of the employees and the public purse?

......and I don't have a problem with companies maximising shareholder value / return - that's what privately owned companies are supposed to do, but lets not pretend that some companies don't take this desire to earn a profit too far with the potential of causing huge social damage.

antoobrien

Jawgap wrote: »

The Ineos refinery at Grangemouth? That's still open and operating.

No the attached petrochem plant that was under threat of closure that would take the refinery with it.

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus, you don't suppose for one minute that the companies who own it were using their dominant position as Scotland's only refinery (and which provides around 70% of the country's fuel) to screw a better deal for their shareholders at the expense of the employees and the public purse?

I don't buy that BS for a minute. The unions & governments apparently think these companies are charities, an attitude that needs to change. The palnt could not continue to operate and the unions bluff was called and they lost.

Jawgap wrote: »

......and I don't have a problem with companies maximising shareholder value / return - that's what privately owned companies are supposed to do, but lets not pretend that some companies don't take this desire to earn a profit too far with the potential of causing huge social damage.

Let's not pretend that they are charities either.

IRLConor

mariaalice wrote: »

Is it possible to have any system of public services provision that is both economical ... and is not a race to the bottom?

No, because they're pretty much the same thing in a lot of cases. Staff costs are a huge portion of the total in many public and private organisations so the only way to keep competitive is to pay people as little as possible or cut quality or both.

A large part of the problem in the discussion about privatisation of public services is that public sector organisations are huge. Large organisations very often fail to make smart decisions on purchasing (whether they're contracting part of their work out or "purchasing" employees) simply because they're big and big organisations find it hard to make good decisions. It's not a public vs private thing, I've worked for several large companies including one ex-public service company and they all struggled despite having lots of smart people working for them. So no matter whether the PS decides to keep stuff in-house or privatise parts of it, it's still probably not going to end up with a cost-effective provision of quality services.

Jawgap

antoobrien wrote: »

No the attached petrochem plant that was under threat of closure that would take the refinery with it.



I don't buy that BS for a minute. The unions & governments apparently think these companies are charities, an attitude that needs to change. The palnt could not continue to operate and the unions bluff was called and they lost.



Let's not pretend that they are charities either.

What Ineos actually said about the site - which they co-own with the Chinese - was that the closure of the petrochem facility would 'threaten' the future of the refinery - a refinery they are now investing stg£150m into (to build a new gas terminal) backed by a stg£125m UK government loan guarantee, and a grant of stg£9m from the Scottish Government.

Plus I never suggested they were a charity or a co-operative and I fully acknowledge the legitimate and important role the profit motive and shareholder value play in encouraging efficiency and driving wider economic activity. I've no problem with profit, capitalism or any of the attendant concepts.

The issue is that some corporations have no concept of 'enough' - just because they can earn that extra cent doesn't mean they should.

Incidentally, while the whole Grangemouth thing was rolling on, Ineos was given a 'positive' outlook by a number of ratings agencies - they retired over $1 billion in debt during the year and generated over $500m in profits on a turnover of $33b in 2012.

they are also cash generative and in their last accounts had $800m in surplus cash.

The 'losses' at Grangemouth are notional and largely due to the $500 million writedown they included for the site into their recent accounts - they essentially loaded 10 years worth of depreciation into a single year for the site - it had the effect of turning a 'profit' of stg£9m for 2011 for that site into a stg£120m loss for 2012.

Grangemouth / Ineos is a bad example if you're looking to illustrate your point about unions wrecking companies.

listermint

IRLConor wrote: »

No, because they're pretty much the same thing in a lot of cases. Staff costs are a huge portion of the total in many public and private organisations so the only way to keep competitive is to pay people as little as possible or cut quality or both.

A large part of the problem in the discussion about privatisation of public services is that public sector organisations are huge. Large organisations very often fail to make smart decisions on purchasing (whether they're contracting part of their work out or "purchasing" employees) simply because they're big and big organisations find it hard to make good decisions. It's not a public vs private thing, I've worked for several large companies including one ex-public service company and they all struggled despite having lots of smart people working for them. So no matter whether the PS decides to keep stuff in-house or privatise parts of it, it's still probably not going to end up with a cost-effective provision of quality services.

Key to that is ownership and participation. If employees feel they have ownership (as such) in the performance of the company and participation in how those outcomes impact the company then attitudes to matters such as more effective 'value' decisions comes naturally. Achieving this thinking however is difficult and key to modifying overall employee behaviours.

antoobrien

Jawgap wrote: »

The issue is that some corporations have no concept of 'enough' - just because they can earn that extra cent doesn't mean they should.

And that ignores the commercial reality that the petrochem arm of the complex was going under without changes. That's not getting an extra cent, that's attempting to keep the cents coming in.

Jawgap wrote: »

Incidentally, while the whole Grangemouth thing was rolling on, Ineos was given a 'positive' outlook by a number of ratings agencies - they retired over $1 billion in debt during the year and generated over $500m in profits on a turnover of $33b in 2012.

Yeah, but you fail to realise that companies get positive outlooks for among other reason cutting the fat from their portfolios.

Jawgap wrote: »

they are also cash generative and in their last accounts had $800m in surplus cash.

The 'losses' at Grangemouth are notional and largely due to the $500 million writedown they included for the site into their recent accounts - they essentially loaded 10 years worth of depreciation into a single year for the site - it had the effect of turning a 'profit' of stg£9m for 2011 for that site into a stg£120m loss for 2012.

Grangemouth / Ineos is a bad example if you're looking to illustrate your point about unions wrecking companies.

Because the global organisation paid down debt and has cash on hand means that the local company is profitable.

You're making leaps of logic that undermine your claims that you think these companies are not charities.

Jawgap

antoobrien wrote: »

And that ignores the commercial reality that the petrochem arm of the complex was going under without changes. That's not getting an extra cent, that's attempting to keep the cents coming in.



Yeah, but you fail to realise that companies get positive outlooks for among other reason cutting the fat from their portfolios.



Because the global organisation paid down debt and has cash on hand means that the local company is profitable.

You're making leaps of logic that undermine your claims that you think these companies are not charities.

......and the depreciation applied to the site to demonstrate a loss......

The 'losses' at Grangemouth are notional and largely due to the $500 million writedown they included for the site into their recent accounts - they essentially loaded 10 years worth of depreciation into a single year for the site - it had the effect of turning a 'profit' of stg£9m for 2011 for that site into a stg£120m loss for 2012.

Bit convenient the way you addressed every point in the post except this one - the one where they applied accountancy principles in a way that best suited their argument, rather than in a more industry standard way.

Of course if they represented the asset value in a more conventional and accepted fashion their case for getting a handout from the public purse might not have been as strong.

....and while we're back to the petrochem facility, it's worth remembering that what Ineos said was that the threat to its future was conditional - unless they got access to cheaper raw materials, the facility would close in 5 years - in other words, they were putting a shot across the bows of the Government not to interfere with their plans to being in cheaper imports.

Finally, you might also acknowledge that the employees did not go on strike or withdraw their labour - the company locked them out, having withdrawn from the ACAS talks! In the wake of the company's withdrawal the union actually called off its planned strike actions.

Also, if you look at the union rhetoric - in this case - they were hardly straining at the lead to go out on strike, and finally they conceded everything to the company; while one third of the workers signed new contracts giving them stg£15,000 cash, a top-up for their new pensions and the removal of their right to strike.

This was just the latest in a series of disputes provoked by the company - they tried at Grangemouth in 2008 and lost, they had a pop at their tanker drivers earlier this year and lost - but they learned and had a good poke about to find a reason to dismiss a workers' rep and provoke round 3, which they won.

Like I said, as an example of neo-liberalism in action it's brilliant - as an example of organised labour wrecking a profitable enterprise, there are much much better ones.

antoobrien

Jawgap wrote: »

Bit convenient the way you addressed every point in the post except this one - the one where they applied accountancy principles in a way that best suited their argument, rather than in a more industry standard way.

I did or did you miss "global organisation", there's nothing in your post to suggest that they applied anything to the individual plant apart form a series of leaps.

Company pays down $1bn in debt and this plant goes from profit to a loss. that's a leap.

How about posting the accounts you're generating these leaps from. Btw unite propaganda statements don't count after their dealings in the Falkirk constituency.

Jawgap

antoobrien wrote: »

I did or did you miss "global organisation", there's nothing in your post to suggest that they applied anything to the individual plant apart form a series of leaps.

Company pays down $1bn in debt and this plant goes from profit to a loss. that's a leap.

How about posting the accounts you're generating these leaps from. Btw unite propaganda statements don't count after their dealings in the Falkirk constituency.

I think you are confusing debt with depreciation.

INEOS retired $1billion in debt - in other words they paid it off

.....and they depreciated the asset value of Grangemouth by $500 million - they said the site was worth $500 million less at the end of 2012 than it was at the beginning.

Your bit about 'global organisation' just said

Because the global organisation paid down debt and has cash on hand means that the local company is profitable.

I'm not sure I see the link to depreciation in that statement - maybe you can point to it?

Accounts of the various companies in the INEOS group......

http://www.cisx.com/listedsecuritynews.php?companyID=1610

Btw - if, as the company suggests, the site is worth '0' - why not sell it? Even if they get a fiver for it - it's five pounds more than they think it's worth. They come out ahead and offload a supposedly loss-making facility - interesting that they didn't, especially for an operation that is - as you have pointed out - non-charitable.

antoobrien

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you are confusing debt with depreciation.

Nope, just restating what you stated.

Jawgap

antoobrien wrote: »

Nope, just restating what you stated.

And sure why wouldn't you - didn't my post prove your point for you;)

anyway next time you pick a bad example - back out instead of digging on.

If you wanted an example of trade unions wrecking not just a company but an entire industry, British Leyland would have been a much better example.

Count Dooku

Godge wrote: »

Can you give me a single real-life example from the last ten years to back up this nonsense?

Liebherr is typical example where unions instead waiting results of LRC hearing went for strike on front of important customers. As result company lost important contract and few months of salesguys hard work totally destroyed. As result Liebherr considering to move away from Killarney, despite whining from SIPTU about OECD guidelines
Lufthansa Technik another victim of unions, which disagreed with increase of pension contributions
Eircom is always in loss despite workers own 14% of shares, while other telecom providers are booming

Godge wrote: »

It is all very well living in a pretend world where private sector employers and employees are all marvellous hard-working contributors to the economy but it is not reality.

I majority of them wouldn't, then it would be no money in economy. Everything what created is created in private sector, especially in MNC's, which generate 75% of GDP.

Scofflaw

Count Dooku wrote:

I majority of them wouldn't, then it would be no money in economy. Everything what created is created in private sector, especially in MNC's, which generate 75% of GDP.

There's a measurement problem there, though. Just as "domestic work" isn't counted towards GDP, neither are the majority of services the state provides. In general if it's possible to make a profit from it, it's in private hands, but that doesn't mean that what isn't profitable isn't valuable. You can't really have a for-profit abuse counselling service, but that doesn't mean that abuse counselling is worthless.

GDP is accepted as a measure because it is comparative between nations, but it really isn't a good measure of what's valuable. It's the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

cordially,
Scofflaw