€490m meant for local services diverted to Irish Water

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

I take it from the question that you just don't agree with bonus schemes in general. That's fine - arguing the pros and cons of bonus schemes is a bit off topic for this thread.
Suffice to say - the management of Irish Water do see some benefits in having a bonus scheme in the running of their business.

No that's not what I said. I questioned why a semi state body, a monopoly with a guaranteed income needs to pay a bonus scheme. Especially when their entire income is funded by the taxpayer.

Bear in mind that you can't actually be fired from Irish Water if you can't do your job. Just moved to somewhere where you are more "suitable".

"It also emerged last night that staff at the commercial State company cannot be disciplined and cannot be fired, Irish Water said. "

http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/cwojojeygbkf/

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

No that's not what I said. I questioned why a semi state body, a monopoly with a guaranteed income needs to pay a bonus scheme. Especially when their entire income is funded by the taxpayer.

So you don't disagree with bonus schemes in general, but you do disagree with this specific bonus scheme in Irish Water. Specifically what is it about this bonus scheme that you disagree with?

Daith wrote: »

Bear in mind that you can't actually be fired from Irish Water if you can't do your job. Just moved to somewhere where you are more "suitable".

Really!! Can you post an employment contract to verify this?

Victor

listermint wrote: »

I ask victor this, do you envisage Irish water coming in and resolving our leaks issue all togethet,

No, I don't think the problems can be solved 'just like that'. However, if one puts a system in place and make it someone's job to deal with something (instead of business as usual), you will see an improvement. Look at the gas situation in Dublin in the 1980s - when Bord Gáis took over from Dublin Gas and the other local gas companies, there was a radical improvement.

do you envisage the service charge to stay at an affordable level

That really depends on a definition of "affordable", doesn't it. The government has said it will continue to subsidise the water supply and additionally 0provide some supports for exceptional cases.

do you envisage this entity as a whole remaining in 'we the peoples hands' or will it become another log on the fire that is our national assets.

If you mean "Will it be privatised?", I don't know. However, two things stand out - there are service level agreements with councils for the next 12 years, so can't see it happening in that time frame. Secondly, you do realise that a lot of the work on the network is already privatised, in that al lot of the physical work in pipe laying and installing meters is done by contractors, not councils? Some treatment works, e.g. Ringsend in Dublin are also contractor operated.

donegal__road wrote: »

The plan is that water charges will be increased if people are not using as much as expected, which means that Irish Water must have a baseline figure that must be reached annually.

Nationally, lower usage will mean a lower total bill. As with anything, if capacity is lying idle, that capacity has to be paid for somehow - or would you prefer the situation where we would always be struggling to match capacity to demand and have no in-built system redundancy?

The implication of your statement, is, of course, that people with second homes, etc. should pay less than other people.

We were initially told by the E.U. that the introduction of water metering was for environmental purposes. Meters were meant to encourage people to be more careful with their usage. It is obvious now that it is instead focused on revenues.

There are two ways to improve the cost/revenue ratio - introduce charges or cut waste. Metering will do both.

The other issue is this... normally a company would be up and running, and turning a profit before the management would start to issue bonuses to board members.

Are board members entitled to bonuses? I though only staff were to get bonuses.

Irish Water has only only cost money so far, yet the management are planning to award themselves bonuses.

You mean they haven't awarded any bonuses yet?

And you do realise that rewarding good work is more useful than paying guaranteed increments? Would you punish good workers relative to sub-standard workers?

donegal__road wrote: »

I wonder would the public have been as compliant with paying the household charge had they known a sizable chunk of it would be used to pay bonuses to the staff of Irish Water.

This is not defend-able.

Do you mean €2.1m out of €490m?

Daith wrote: »

Sure but because they're not as bad doesn't mean it's right. They're a semi state body who's policy is no bonuses getting bonuses. In a monopoly no less.

What does a monopoly have to do with bonuses?

wendell borton wrote: »

They can try, but there should be serious opposition from the people of the west who get forgotten when it comes to job creation and investment yet are expected to give up resources due to inept and corrupt planning.

But what does that have anything to do with thw topic at hand?

tayto lover wrote: »

Did we not also give away our natural gas?

Off-topic, but no we haven't. What we have is a low royalty / low tax regime to promote exploration.

keeponhurling wrote: »

While I agree in principle that people should pay for water like mist other countries, I'm concerned that all these extra charges are making it less and less attractive to work in Ireland, relative to being unemployed.

There is no suggestion that unemployed people will be exempt from water charges.

There's a terrible brain drain, I hate to see us educating our young people to university standard and seeing them just leave.

Nothing to do with water services. Drains carry waste water, not brains.

twinytwo

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The problem with water charges is control. Its no longer a function of local government. Apparently, this precious natural resource is for sale.

A natioanl resource. Resold back to you by some shammers. Shammers who call the shots. And nothing you can do about it if you don't like it.

Do we want some third party unaccountable commercial entity in charge of OUR water?

Fvck no.

But for some odd reason - people like you are pushing this change upon us.

Odd.

least we forget, they have been given a remit to up charges whenever they want, thus the bring in water meters... people actually start to conserve/use less water.... suddenly not enough money is coming in so lets up the price....

Phoebas

twinytwo wrote: »

least we forget, they have been given a remit to up charges whenever they want, thus the bring in water meters... people actually start to conserve/use less water.... suddenly not enough money is coming in so lets up the price....

That's just a complete fabrication.

Phill Ewinn

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you do know treating water is not free right, and has a substantial cost in provision, a cost which increases with volume?

€480 buys a lot of capacity is a system flooded with raw material. Water.


Are people genuinely posting stuff like this on purpose just to be controversial or argumentative?

We have a system that is providing water. We're giving that away. Losing a daughter, not gaining a son so to speak.

Phoebas

Phill Ewing wrote:

We have a system that is providing water. We're giving that away. Losing a daughter, not gaining a son so to speak.

No. We aren't.

taytothief

I'm so angry I'm ripping the cushion off my armchair.

Phill Ewinn

Phoebas wrote: »

No. We aren't.

Oh yes we are...

Pantomime!

Phoebas

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Pantomime!

Complete with fairy tale!

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

I have a bonus scheme where I work and it does motivate me both to hit my targets and to stay with the company.

Targets......


Do they involve posts on a website defending Govt strokes, no matter how obvious and deceitful they are

Hootanany

Phoebas wrote: »

No. We aren't.

Out in force tonight are you on overtime

Phoebas

Banjo String wrote: »

Targets......


Do they involve posts on a website defending Govt strokes, no matter how obvious and deceitful they are

Hootanany wrote: »

Out in force tonight are you on overtime

Such cheap shots.
Let's stick to honest debate.

Phill Ewinn

Phoebas wrote: »

Such cheap shots.
Let's stick to honest debate.

Pot black kettle

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

Such cheap shots.

If only the Govt could meter them eh.

Phoebas wrote: »

Let's stick to honest debate.

My (personal) opinion..

Irish Steve

There is a wider political agenda here.

Water has to be taken out of the political arena, and put beyond the direct interference of the political system. That's much easier to do if the thing is run by a semi state rather than the local authorities.

That will become important to keep the EU happy, and when water has to come from the Shannon to Dublin, it will be a lot easier to force that through as a project to be managed by Irish Water than by a collection of local authorities, each of which would have its own agenda, and would be liable to local political interference. Irish Water will be more removed from that influence, and will be separately funded, so not as liable to subject to manipulation of the budgets.

Like it or not, treated water is not free, nor is the treatment of waste water after it has been used, the costs of both is significant, and has to be paid one way or another. If some of the charges are based on usage, maybe people will be more proactive in dealing with leaks, and other forms of excessive use that are not a factor at the moment,

The way Irish Water has been brought about and structured is a total mess, partly because it's been long fingered for so long, the only reason it's happening now is because the Troika forced the issue, otherwise it would have stayed on the long finger until it eventually fell off.

Bonuses for staff and management at Irish Water at this stage of the set up are inappropriate. Its a semi state, the rules are the rules, and need to be recognised and respected, and enforced. There are too many people in IW who have come through the culture that expects bonuses and the like regardless of actual performance, and some of them have a pretty poor track record where delivery of projects on time and on budget are concerned. Bonuses in a monopoly that has no way to have its performance measured and monitored look very much to me like a repeat of the old gravy train, which is one of the things that got us where we were.

In that respect, a new clause is needed in the contract of employment for all state and semi state workers, and those in places like charities, public hospitals and the like that goes along the lines that if they act, condone actions or activities that are deemed to be inappropriate or offensive to public sensibilities, their contract of employment can be terminated with prejudice, meaning that for some situations, things like pensions and golden handshakes will be forfeit.

IW is unfortunately a done deal. If it can be made to operate under a better structure with real regulation, rather than the soft regulation that isn't regulation, maybe things will eventually improve in other areas as well, but it will need politicians with balls and the corporate will to stand up to the Golden Circle. I don;t see too many of them right now, the last lot were the cause of many of the problems, the present lot have promised much and delivered very little real reform. Their time is fast running out.

Hootanany

Phoebas wrote: »

Such cheap shots.
Let's stick to honest debate.

Yes lets

humanji

Attack the post, not the poster, folks.

renegademaster

skywalker wrote: »

So their using the proceeds of one unpopular stealth tax to fund the introduction another unpopular stealth tax.

I hope fine gael are wiped out at the next election. Not that it will matter to the current crop at the top of the party, who will all be retired off to Europe or a few cushy board jobs. They have nothing to offer the people of Ireland.

It's this mentality of "only option available is voting them out in apr 2016" that allows all the decisions to date and going forward until the day we're allowed vote in another bunch of cnuts!! Shame on us for taking it!!

Victor

RandomName2 wrote: »

To what extent does it increase with volume?

No, that's a genuine question - I've never ever seen any figures quoted on the subject (biased or no) but I'm actually interested.

The main current costs (incurred all the time, not capital costs like pipes and treatment works) would be things like filters / filter materials, treatment chemicals and pumping costs ( whether diesel or electric).

For Dublin City council in 2012, capital and current costs were about equal. However, not all current costs would be variable, e.g. staff costs would be largely fixed.

twinytwo wrote: »

least we forget, they have been given a remit to up charges whenever they want

No they haven't. Charges will be determined by the CER.

thus the bring in water meters... people actually start to conserve/use less water.... suddenly not enough money is coming in so lets up the price....

Do you have any commercial experience on how to allocates costs or pricing? Importantly, the total would never be more than total would be if more water is used.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

€480 buys a lot of capacity is a system flooded with raw material. Water.

But people want clean water at their taps, not muddy water from a river.

Are people genuinely posting stuff like this on purpose just to be controversial or argumentative?

I think there is a certain group using Joe Duffy tactics to wind up people, for party political purposes.

We have a system that is providing water. We're giving that away. Losing a daughter, not gaining a son so to speak.

Losing to who exactly?

steddyeddy

I don't accept 50 million was needed for consultants or that 490 million needed to be diverted from local services. It's obscene.

Victor

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't accept 50 million was needed for consultants

How much would you pay them?

or that 490 million needed to be diverted from local services.

It's not diverted. Last year X was spent on water services and about the same will be spent this year.

steddyeddy

Victor wrote: »

How much would you pay them?

It's not diverted. Last year X was spent on water services and about the same will be spent this year.

I don't know but I work with scientists who work with far more complicated things than setting up a billing company for a lot less money. You can't seriously believe it takes 50 million worth of advice to set up a billing system in a company which already uses billing systems?

tgdaly

All services related to environmental issues in this country no matter what they are, be it water, waste disposal, forestry etc, are poorly run

Hootanany

tgdaly wrote: »

All services related to environmental issues in this country no matter what they are, be it water, waste disposal, forestry etc, are poorly run

Or she'll out public funds to political contributors allegedly

donegal__road

Victor wrote: »

How much would you pay them?

It's not diverted. Last year X was spent on water services and about the same will be spent this year.

with all due respect, the headline in The Examiner newspaper in the OP did refer to the fact that the funds were being 'diverted' from government funds for social services, to Irish Water.

Once again, here is the link with the story

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/490m-meant-for-local-services-diverted-to-irish-water-255608.html

Victor

donegal__road wrote: »

with all due respect, the headline in The Examiner newspaper ...

... is sensationalist.

in the OP did refer to the fact that the funds were being 'diverted' from government funds for social services

You mean services like water services? If you bothered to read the headline it says "€490m meant for local services diverted to Irish Water" - no mention of "social services".

Did you ever go back and actually make your own comment in the OP? Or do you just like getting people wound up Joe Duffy style?

Phill Ewinn

Victor wrote: »

The main current costs (incurred all the time, not capital costs like pipes and treatment works) would be things like filters / filter materials, treatment chemicals and pumping costs ( whether diesel or electric).

For Dublin City council in 2012, capital and current costs were about equal. However, not all current costs would be variable, e.g. staff costs would be largely fixed.

No they haven't. Charges will be determined by the CER.

Do you have any commercial experience on how to allocates costs or pricing? Importantly, the total would never be more than total would be if more water is used.

But people want clean water at their taps, not muddy water from a river.
I think there is a certain group using Joe Duffy tactics to wind up people, for party political purposes.

Losing to who exactly?

Losing it to someone charged with making a profit from it. Certainly losing control of it.

People have water at their taps. Water they are paying for now through taxation. The solutions you're putting forward are absurd. Thats a fact.

Don't think even talk to Joe would entertain this kind of nonsense.

Cookie_Monster

RandomName2 wrote: »

To what extent does it increase with volume?

No, that's a genuine question - I've never ever seen any figures quoted on the subject (biased or no) but I'm actually interested.

While I'm not expert on it if you are talking about direct costs of provision (and not expenses) have all the variable costs of production such as the various chemical and treatments of the water, more water usage means more chlorine, flouride etc needs to be bought. More power will need to be used to run the treatment plants and pumping stations etc

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

We have a system that is providing water. We're giving that away. Losing a daughter, not gaining a son so to speak.

we have a system which loses 20-40% of it water without providing it to anyone and costs a fortune to maintain annually. Water needs to be run as a utility just like elec or gas and it should be split out but not in the scandalous way that it is being 'attempted' by Ireland. And I do also agree it's a form of double taxation under the current setup. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, it's just a pity it's being done in the same ham fisted way Ireland deals with everything.

Phill Ewinn

Thats it though. Its Oireland!

No one is accountable!
No one is responsible!
If something goes wrong, throw money at it.


When are people going to start using their votes responsibly?