Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should teachers in the 5 carillion schools pass pickets put there by unpaid sub contr

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Trasna1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    TheDriver wrote: »
    Is it like the line on invoices that all property remains the property of the company until paid for.
    Regarding pickets, there's very strict laws governing industrial disputes which protects everyone but that doesn't including not wanting to pass pickets on your own decision. That leads to discipline action unless officially sanctioned by your union.

    That doesn't carry any weight, you can write anything you want on an invoice.

    It's what's in the contract that important.


  • #53
    joebloggs32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭joebloggs32


    SligoBrewer wrote: »
    I know 6 principals who wouldn't exactly be too happy...

    It must depend on who is running them


  • #54
    SligoBrewer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    EdgeCase wrote: »

    The state (all of us) is a victim in this too. We paid for a school and the supplier folded without paying subcontractors.

    Are you honestly weighing up your losses and mine in this situation with those of someone who is owed €200k for furniture that they could return?


  • #55
    SligoBrewer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    joebloggs32 wrote: »
    It must depend on who is running them

    Carillion and Sammon were the people involved I think.


  • #56
    EdgeCase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭EdgeCase


    SligoBrewer wrote: »
    Are you honestly weighing up your losses and mine in this situation with those of someone who is owed €200k for furniture that they could return?

    I'm saying that in a situation like this is that everyone loses out.
    The implication is that the state should pay twice for stuff it purchased as part of a contract and tender process that was entered into in good faith. If the suppliers' contracts are written in such a way that the seller still owns the property and has rights to repossession, then they should repossess it as it's clearly not been paid for.

    However, I fail to see how removing fittings like railings is going to do anything other than incur more costs as those items are definitely not returnable to stock or usable elsewhere. Ultimately, that will just fall on the state / school to pay for all over again.

    There is an actual liquidation process that tries to resolve those issues as best it can.

    The whole situation is an absolute mess, but those are the risks of doing subcontracts under the current setup. There should be some kind of bond type insurance in place to mitigate those issues.

    I just don't think that it should be a case that state i.e. all of us, end up paying for things twice over due to a screw up by a UK company going bust. Ultimately, that money just ends up coming out of the education budget which means things like school buildings, teachers' jobs, facilities, psychological services, support services and all of those things.

    There is no nice solution to this, but the state isn't a bottomless money pit either.

    It's a zero sum game, the money has to come from somewhere. So if the state pays for it, it ultimately comes from some other budget that was supposed to be spent on public service.

    It's a terrible situation, but it should be dealt with through liquidation and by minimising everyone's losses, including the state and school's, which are very significant.


  • #57
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    It's on RTE Prime Time tonight!


  • #58
    madmac187
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭madmac187


    This is why they are subcontractors they take the risk and make the windfall or take the risk and get burned.

    Period. And this is coming from a construction professional.


  • #59
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    The nub is that the sub-contractors want the govt. to stump up.
    Minister Bruton said (paraphrasing) that it's not the taxpayer who's failed to pay.
    Ironically the govt. haven't paid the contractor yet as the schools haven't been handed over (well that's what we're being led to believe anyway). Contractor is bust... so they have to get a new contractor and then that contractor has to sort it out with the sub-contractor. The Govt can't step in mid liquidation and bypass the process just to be nice or fair!

    I think the real question now is, who is going to be the new contractor??? It might be nice for some shrewd company to swoop in, put a few finishing touches and collect the cheque from the Dept. of Ed. for the full whack.
    Maybe then, the new company can factor in a compensation of some sort with the sub-contractors before the Dept. will close the deal.

    I doubt those new schools will be opening this coming August.

    I seems that virtually no money has been handed over from the Govt , this is a good thing. I'd say if they had handed over a lot of money, companies could high tailed it earlier, no building, money gone.


  • #60
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,273 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    It might be nice for some shrewd company to swoop in, put a few finishing touches and collect the cheque from the Dept. of Ed. for the full whack.
    That's not really how it works though.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    That's not really how it works though.

    How does it work then?


  • #62
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,273 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    How does it work then?

    The Dept issues a contract based on the amount of work outstanding, not based on the 'full whack'.


  • #63
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Teachers have to work too many days as it is. They shouldn't pass the pickets.


  • #64
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The Dept issues a contract based on the amount of work outstanding, not based on the 'full whack'.

    From my understanding from what Bruton says(or let's just say hypothetically) the govt hasen't been handed over anything yet and haven't paid anything yet either.
    There's a building practically finished. Let's say 100k worth left to do.
    A new company comes in and does the work for the 100k (factoring in their profit).
    So the govt. only pays 100k (I.e. the amount outstanding). For a building worth about 2 million!
    Is that right?
    Sweet deal if so.


  • #65
    TheDriver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,681 ✭✭✭✭TheDriver


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    From my understanding from what Bruton says(or let's just say hypothetically) the govt hasen't been handed over anything yet and haven't paid anything yet either.
    There's a building practically finished. Let's say 100k worth left to do.
    A new company comes in and does the work for the 100k (factoring in their profit).
    So the govt. only pays 100k (I.e. the amount outstanding). For a building worth about 2 million!
    Is that right?
    Sweet deal if so.

    I'd assume the receivers will be looking for payment for work done so far?


  • #66
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    TheDriver wrote: »
    I'd assume the receivers will be looking for payment for work done so far?

    But all of the cost of that work was born by the contractor! And they're gone.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    ismat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 168 ✭✭ismat


    These schools are all being leased from the development company , inspired spaces i think is its name, for a period of 20 years under A PPP deal. The government is not the builder of the schools so why would it pay any subbies directly ? The only one with responsibilities to pay sub contractors is the main contractor.


  • #68
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    But all of the cost of that work was born by the contractor! And they're gone.

    They are not completely gone. There will be someone appointed by the courts to collect any money owed to them, sell any assets they have and the pay off as much of their debts as possible. It it during this process that they would be paid if they haven't been already.


  • #69
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,635 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    GarIT wrote: »
    They are not completely gone. There will be someone appointed by the courts to collect any money owed to them, sell any assets they have and the pay off as much of their debts as possible. It it during this process that they would be paid if they haven't been already.
    And the work done to date on the buildings would be the largest asset. It may sell at a knock down price (a did many boom time built hotels) and earn a tidy profit for whatever company buys the buildings. Is there potential role for a NAMA type acquisition here?


  • #70
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,189 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    SligoBrewer wrote:
    Union members of whatever union should never pass a picket tbf.

    If you paid for a family holiday in Disney land but there were pickets at the Dublin Airport I think you would have a different opinion. My money is union member or not you & your kids will be in Disneyland.


  • #71
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,189 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    evolving_doors wrote:
    From my understanding from what Bruton says(or let's just say hypothetically) the govt hasen't been handed over anything yet and haven't paid anything yet either. There's a building practically finished. Let's say 100k worth left to do. A new company comes in and does the work for the 100k (factoring in their profit). So the govt. only pays 100k (I.e. the amount outstanding). For a building worth about 2 million! Is that right? Sweet deal if so.


    It would be very unusual that the government hasn't paid any money over. Usually builder meets certain targets each month and gets paid a percentage.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    It would be very unusual that the government hasn't paid any money over. Usually builder meets certain targets each month and gets paid a percentage.

    I thought that under ppp private stumps up initially and then govt pays back over a number of years after. Like with the m50 / toll road with NTR


Advertisement