€490m meant for local services diverted to Irish Water

Junco Partner

Wonder what they'll privatise next. Oxygen?

Phill Ewinn

Junco Partner wrote: »

Wonder what they'll privatise next. Oxygen?

The health service.

kippy

zerks wrote: »

I think we should live in a country where the government doesn't introduce one form of tax then use the proceeds to fund the setting up another form of taxation.

The government conned us plain and simple.They sent out glossy brochures of wonderful parks and smiling people to show what the property tax would be spent on.I went for a walk earlier,dodged potholes crossing the roads,struggled along decrepit footpaths covered in dogshit.Of course there's no money to pay for these issues to be addressed,why would there be when over €400 million was diverted to Irish Water.:mad: FFS,they spent €20k just to redesign the existing logo.

There is no country in the world that the proceeds of one tax ARENT used to set up another tax.

Chinasea

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

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?

Agree, but the only 'Wan' pulling no punches and speaking with genuine conviction is Sinn Fein's Mary Lou. :mad:

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

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?

Specifically that there will be less money spent on water infrastructure which you have claimed is in a massive deficit and the reason why we have Irish Water in the first place.

Perhaps I'm misguided in my belief and Irish Water is there to fix our water infrastructure including those areas in Ireland with dirty drinking water. If they can do that, yeah they deserve a bonus.

Phoebas

Junco Partner wrote: »

Wonder what they'll privatise next. Oxygen?

It hasn't been privatised.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Specifically that there will be less money spent on water infrastructure which you have claimed is in a massive deficit and the reason why we have Irish Water in the first place.

That may be an argument for paying Irish Water staff less, but it isn't an argument for not including a bonus element in the overall remuneration package.

Daith wrote: »

Perhaps I'm misguided in my belief and Irish Water is there to fix our water infrastructure including those areas in Ireland with dirty drinking water. If they can do that, yeah they deserve a bonus.

So you're against bonuses in Irish Water except when you're for them

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

That may be an argument for paying Irish Water staff less, but it isn't an argument for not including a bonus element in the overall remuneration package.

Why isn't it an argument? You said yourself the water infrastructure is in massive deficit. Why not pay staff a good salary and potential bonus money goes to water infrastructure itself?

Again not every company pays a bonus. Why this belief that it should be part of Irish Water? It's not mandatory.

The company has no competition and a guaranteed source of income. More than alot of jobs. Is job security not a good trade off versus bonuses?

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Why isn't it an argument? You said yourself the water infrastructure is in massive deficit. Why not pay staff a good salary and potential bonus money goes to water infrastructure.

Why not cut the base pay or the pension contribution or the health insurance contribution rather than the bonus? Wouldn't that save money for infrastructure just as effectively?

The overall staff numbers and salary costs were agreed and the management decided how to structure it. If they cut the bonus element, it'll just be incorporated back into base pay. I think what you're really calling for here is a pay cut.

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Again not every company pays a bonus. Why this belief that it should be part of Irish Water? It's not mandatory.

It was the management of Irish Water who decided that it was an appropriate part of the salary package for their business. Why do you believe that you know how to structure their remuneration package better than they do?

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

It was the management of Irish Water who decided that it was an appropriate part of the salary package for their business. Why do you believe that you know how to structure their remuneration package better than they do?

I don't.

My only issue is I'd rather see more of the money I pay, the taxpayer pays go to improving the infrastructure and directly to the infrastructure. Not a portion as a bonus pay.

I don't actually think that's a bad idea or that there's something wrong to suggest it.

You are the one who pointed out that there's a massive deficit in water infrastructure. Yet you are in favour of less money from the public going to it.

Also not having a bonus does not equal a pay cut. Unless it's a guaranteed bonus....

galwayrush

Our household tax buys us a water tax and another layer of overpaid twits. Brilliant.:pac::pac:

Phoebas

Daith wrote: »

Yet you are in favour of less money from the public going to it.

I consider investing in the staff who deliver the infrastructure to be an investment in the infrastructure itself.

Banjo String

With no competition, and guaranteed Revenue stream (people conserving their water? Up the price of what they do use.....)

These lads will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Good job they've prepared themselves with a course of 'laughter yoga'.

Unfknbelvable.

Irish Water has been blasted for spending €6,000 sending 300 of its staff to a laughing yoga class.

The course involved a baseball cap wearing instructor leading the staff in a series of laughter therapy exercises.

Those who attended ranged from those in their early twenties to people at senior executive level.

The aim of the course is to break down inhibitions and to bring out the "inner child".

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-water-blasted-spending-6000-3037998

Daith

Phoebas wrote: »

I consider investing in the staff who deliver the infrastructure to be an investment in the infrastructure itself.

Fair enough. I think a salary in a job that has no competition and a guaranteed source of income should be enough.

I think you can invest in your staff without necessarily throwing more money at them. A bonus isn't an investment. It's an incentive. Also not getting a bonus doesn't mean you are getting a pay cut.

Knob Longman

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/size-of-home-could-determine-level-of-water-charge-620175.html

Could it be any more of a fiasco ??? It's like they are making it up as they go along....

tayto lover

Phoebas wrote: »

I consider investing in the staff who deliver the infrastructure to be an investment in the infrastructure itself.

Have you ever had an opinion that differs from the FG line?

Phoebas

tayto lover wrote: »

Have you ever had an opinion that differs from the FG line?

I don't think that considering that investing in the staff who deliver the infrastructure to be an investment in the infrastructure itself was a FG line.

Anyway, lets stick to the topic at hand rather than the generality of my opinions.

donegal__road

I heard it said on the radio today, that the €85 million in consultants fees was actually money that the government has given to Bord Gais to plug the hole left after Bord Gais assets were sold off last year when the government needed money... and the CRC scandal was leaked to cover this up.

Will find a link to the interview.

Phoebas

donegal__road wrote: »

I heard it said on the radio today, that the €85 million in consultants fees was actually money that the government has given to Bord Gais to plug the hole left after Bord Gais assets were sold off last year when the government needed money... and the CRC scandal was leaked to cover this up.

Will find a link to the interview.

Link for that.

donegal__road

it was today's Marian Finucane show on RTE

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucane/

They were discussing an article written by Colm McCarthy claiming what I mentioned in my last post. Im not sure of where exactly in the broadcast this was talked about, but I will find it.

LeinsterDub

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Shock horror , road workers eat and piss . Hold the front page of the herald

Sorry i cant hold the front page of the Herald i am currently takin a big dirty sh!te. Didnt you get my memo ?

Oh and I never used the term worker.

harryr711

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-water-blasted-spending-6000-3037998

€6000 on laughter yoga courses for 300 employees.

I can only assume they were laughing at the taxpayer.

Phoebas

donegal__road wrote: »

They were discussing an article written by Colm McCarthy claiming what I mentioned in my last post.

Here's what Colm McCarthy actually thinks about Irish Water.

On bonuses specifically:

For the record, the pay system at Irish Water is to follow the set-up at its parent, the gas board BGE, where automatic pay increases and increments have been scrapped and replaced with non-automatic and capped bonuses based on performance. The remuneration system in place and in prospect at Irish Water was shown, in the evidence presented last week, to be fully in compliance with all government guidelines.

Irish Steve

Phoebas wrote: »

It was the management of Irish Water who decided that it was an appropriate part of the salary package for their business. Why do you believe that you know how to structure their remuneration package better than they do?

And pray tell how the management of Irish Water know what is appropriate for a water business in Ireland, up till now, there's been no such thing.

What the management have "managed" (in a number of cases) to be responsible for in their previous posts is a significant number of major infrastructure projects that have either failed, or gone way over budget, or both, so on that basis, I would suggest that the man in the street that has to pay for it has as much right to comment on the strategy of the management as they do.

The Public sector in this country has demonstrated on a regular basis that it cannot be relied on to deliver on time and within budget, partly because the people at the top have too often only got there because there's nowhere else to put them. When that has failed, the only solution is to reorganise, even if it's only a change of name for the department, that way, people can be moved sideways or out of the way. It's been the way it's done for a good while now, but the electorate are at last getting wise to the ways of the Golden Circle, and are prepared to stand up and cry FOUL.

Contracts of employment for semi states and state employment need to have new clauses in them that will allow for removal from post, (with prejudice in some cases) for people that are deemed to have either failed to perform to an acceptable standard, or are deemed to have performed in a way that is offensive to public sensibilities.

To qualify that, is there anyone that is prepared to say that the actions of the CEO of the CRC are acceptable, or that the actions of the board that approved those actions are acceptable? The fact that they have resigned is not enough, there need to be consequences for their actions that directly impact the financial provision they have made for themselves. Those safeguards need to be a fundamental part of the contract of employment of all people in that sort of role in future.

The other alternative is to completely remove from the public arena the ability for any of the public service to determine and approve their remuneration. If that means that pay rises for politicians, Civil Servants and the people above a certain level in Semi States have to be approved by referendum, then so be it, that would be better than the present mess that has no accountability. Such a referendum could be incorporated in to the voting requirement for elections, at least then, if the voters don't like what's been approved, they will know who to blame.

And before someone says vote differently at an election, I will ask if voting for Michael Martin, Eamon Gilmore, Enda Kenny, Gerry Adams, or Ming Flanagan would make one iota of difference to the way that things happen right now, and we know the real answer to that, the vast majority of the present serving politicians have no interest what so ever in changing the status quo, regardless if they be left, right, centre or off the wall.

The concept of Irish Water is not wrong,

Water needed to be taken out of local political control and influence, and put on a proper footing.

What's fundamentally wrong is the way it's been fudged, there are all manner of insane compromises in the way the structure has been set up, and the way it has been resourced, and in the way that the management structure has been appointed, and for that, other politicians should be made accountable, but again, we all know that's not going to happen either, there is NO culture or concept of accountability in the Public and Semi State sector at present, and the absence of that accountability is one of the fundamental reasons for the dire mess that the economy is in and will still be in for quite some time to come.

People across the board are crying FOUL. When will the people at the top listen, and act? That is the real question that is not being answered.

sunflower27

melekalikimaka wrote: »

rabble rabble

stealth

rabble rabble

crooks

And maybe that is exactly why nothing changes in Ireland. Very few actually care enough to do anything about it.

Phoebas

Irish Steve wrote: »

And pray tell how the management of Irish Water know what is appropriate for a water business in Ireland, up till now, there's been no such thing.

What the management have "managed" (in a number of cases) to be responsible for in their previous posts is a significant number of major infrastructure projects that have either failed, or gone way over budget, or both, so on that basis, I would suggest that the man in the street that has to pay for it has as much right to comment on the strategy of the management as they do.

The Public sector in this country has demonstrated on a regular basis that it cannot be relied on to deliver on time and within budget, partly because the people at the top have too often only got there because there's nowhere else to put them. When that has failed, the only solution is to reorganise, even if it's only a change of name for the department, that way, people can be moved sideways or out of the way. It's been the way it's done for a good while now, but the electorate are at last getting wise to the ways of the Golden Circle, and are prepared to stand up and cry FOUL.

Contracts of employment for semi states and state employment need to have new clauses in them that will allow for removal from post, (with prejudice in some cases) for people that are deemed to have either failed to perform to an acceptable standard, or are deemed to have performed in a way that is offensive to public sensibilities.

To qualify that, is there anyone that is prepared to say that the actions of the CEO of the CRC are acceptable, or that the actions of the board that approved those actions are acceptable? The fact that they have resigned is not enough, there need to be consequences for their actions that directly impact the financial provision they have made for themselves. Those safeguards need to be a fundamental part of the contract of employment of all people in that sort of role in future.

The other alternative is to completely remove from the public arena the ability for any of the public service to determine and approve their remuneration. If that means that pay rises for politicians, Civil Servants and the people above a certain level in Semi States have to be approved by referendum, then so be it, that would be better than the present mess that has no accountability. Such a referendum could be incorporated in to the voting requirement for elections, at least then, if the voters don't like what's been approved, they will know who to blame.

And before someone says vote differently at an election, I will ask if voting for Michael Martin, Eamon Gilmore, Enda Kenny, Gerry Adams, or Ming Flanagan would make one iota of difference to the way that things happen right now, and we know the real answer to that, the vast majority of the present serving politicians have no interest what so ever in changing the status quo, regardless if they be left, right, centre or off the wall.

The concept of Irish Water is not wrong,

Water needed to be taken out of local political control and influence, and put on a proper footing.

What's fundamentally wrong is the way it's been fudged, there are all manner of insane compromises in the way the structure has been set up, and the way it has been resourced, and in the way that the management structure has been appointed, and for that, other politicians should be made accountable, but again, we all know that's not going to happen either, there is NO culture or concept of accountability in the Public and Semi State sector at present, and the absence of that accountability is one of the fundamental reasons for the dire mess that the economy is in and will still be in for quite some time to come.

People across the board are crying FOUL. When will the people at the top listen, and act? That is the real question that is not being answered.

As you say, there has been no such thing before, so they might not have experience in running a water company, they do have experience running a large utility.

I can't say if BGE were the best choice for getting the gig, but I haven't heard a compelling argument yet for any alternative.

ttenneb

As far back as last April I wrote to the Minister for basic information:

"Dear Minister

Do you have any information regarding the Water Metering details. For instance, will there be a quota above which we then have to pay? Will it be charged per household or on a per capita basis? Has it yet been established what the average personal consumption allowance will be?"

I've sought information re above and so far haven't heard a dickiebird anywhere. When will we know all the facts?

newbie2013

I just lol at these threads. Here we can clearly see the government screwed us over yet again, we get a few rants then it's back to your ****e pathetic lives. I remember looking at the fighting Irish logos and having pride seeing them because I used to believe we were a great nation that took no ****. Fighting Irish my ballix lol. Should stick pink fluffy slippers and aprons on the men of this country because their no good for fighting for what's right. Bend over and take it like the fool's yous are. You know it makes sence

Phill Ewinn

Phoebas wrote: »

Here's what Colm McCarthy actually thinks about Irish Water.

On bonuses specifically:

Who cares what CmcC says? In.line with government guidlines? DUH!

"Ripping people off is in line with corrupt government guidline shocker".

Seriously.

CmcC should STFU.