Privatisation Poll

arcadegame2004

I generally agree with privatisation, except in the rail sector, as it is very hard to see how competition could work in such a natural monopoly.

I favour the privatisation of Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, ESB, Bord Gais, Bord na Mona, and Dublin Bus, however, as I believe that economies perform better when the State avoids interfering too much in industry. I also believe that too many party-hacks are appointed to the boards of such companies to reward those who fund political-parties. That surely is a bad criterion for assessing the competency of a director.

I also support privatisation generally because of the money raised from the sale of semi-state companies. The proceeds of the sake of Eircom went into the National Pension Reserve Fund, helping to ensure that the pensioners of tommorrow will be financially secure in their old-age. Besides this, the proceeds of privatisations could bring in colossal amounts of money to help speed up the National Development Plan, as well as to repair run-down school buildings.

I feel that the fact that Dublin Bus strikers can hold the capital to ransom due to the absence of competition only serves to strengthen the case for competition. As does the threats of the much-pampered workers in the ESB to shut down our electricity (they are paid 120,000 euro per annum and want an 18% pay rise). State-owned Monopolies encourage their workers to press for exorbitant pay demands because the consumer has no other companies to turn too.

jd

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
State-owned Monopolies encourage their workers to press for exorbitant pay demands because the consumer has no other companies to turn too.

as distinct from private monopolies?

arcadegame2004

as distinct from private monopolies?

State-owned monopolies are far more common in this country. I oppose any monopoly of course being allowed to retain a monopolistic position. But at least private-sector monopolies aren't legally protected by laws BANNING any other company from entering the market, unlike public-sector monopolies like ESB and Aer Rianta.

We have a Competition Authority in this country though I feel it should have increased powers. The Dept. of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has the power to break up private-sector monopolies. I define a monopoly as a company with 70%+ of market share. By that definition, almost all our public-sector companies are monopolies. The trade unions only oppose privatisation because it reduces their ability to hold us to ransom in support of ridiculous pay-demands which violate the pay-deals they themselves sign up to.

Clearly, the ESB unions are breaking the recently agreed pay-deal by demanding an 18% pay rise even though 5% was the pay-rise agreed to in the National Wage Deal. They cannot use "benchmarking" as an excuse because the private-sector is barred until at least 2005 from supplying the consumer market.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
they are paid 120,000 euro per annum and want an 18% pay rise

who are "they"?

arcadegame2004

ESB workers.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
ESB workers.

and where did you get this figure from? (link/source)

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
ESB workers.

Thats a nice, vague description.

Which ESB workers would you be referring to? The fitters? The electricians? The yard workers (in the thermal plants)? The station management? The national board?

Who, exactly?

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey
Thats a nice, vague description.

Which ESB workers would you be referring to? The fitters? The electricians? The yard workers (in the thermal plants)? The station management? The national board?

Who, exactly?

bonkey...

http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=63535668&p=63536x79&n=63536121

28/06/2004 - 18:04:00

Unions in the state electricity company are to meet with bosses later this week in a bid to avert strike action, it emerged today.

The ESB Officers Association said after today’s discussions that all of the unions would be seeking some clarifications from the company’s management before the meeting next Friday.

Workers were seeking to boost their 5% stake in the company with an extra 15% shareholding and the unions were also looking for an 18.5% rise in pay.

Tony Dunne, ESBOA general secretary, said: “The 18% is not as prominent, there is a large deficit in the pension fund.

“The situation wasn’t one that emerged over a couple of months, it is €510m in deficit and it is a serious matter.

“It needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Our view is the pension funds situation has to be addressed. That has assumed a larger importance than the 15 to 18%.”

Mike.

therecklessone

Originally posted by mike65
bonkey...

http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=63535668&p=63536x79&n=63536121



Mike.

Doesn't mention a salary.

€120,000 sounds a ridiculously high amount. Any source arcadegame?

jd

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I generally agree with privatisation, except in the rail sector, as it is very hard to see how competition could work in such a natural monopoly.

What about ESB's transmission network? You don't think it is a candidate for a natural monopoly?

lucernarian

I think that the government is very intelligent for thinking of selling a semi-state company that is making a profit of €60 or €80 million for the state (Im not sure which) just last year. Its nearly certain that Aer Lingus will continue making profits for the forseeable future.

arcadegame2004

.

Its nearly certain that Aer Lingus will continue making profits for the forseeable future.

You can't possibly know that.

Aer Lingus management estimate that Aer Lingus requires investment of 1 billion euro, and they would have a far better idea that any of us. Indeed they have proposed the privatisation of Aer Lingus through a management buyout. Privatisation would deliver that additional capital. The aviation sector is a highly competitive marketplace and it is foolish to assume that just because things are rosy in the garden now that they will remain so. It isn't so long since Aer Lingus was in dire straits.

ZENER

But at least private-sector monopolies aren't legally protected by laws BANNING any other company from entering the market, unlike public-sector monopolies like ESB and Aer Rianta.

What a load af utter crap, where do you get this sh!t from arcade game ??? Do you attend the Michael O'Leary institution of "Say it often enough and it becomes truth" by any chance ???

Firstly there are no laws banning private airport or power management companies entering the Irish market. Airtricity (sp?) is an independant energy supplier and 6 out of the 9 airports in Ireland are managed by private companies.

You have still to provide links to the employees of ESB getting salaries of 120 grand a year ???

ZEN

Stabshauptmann

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I generally agree with privatisation, except in the rail sector, as it is very hard to see how competition could work in such a natural monopoly.

I favour the privatisation of Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, ESB, Bord Gais, Bord na Mona, and Dublin Bus, however, as I believe that economies perform better when the State avoids interfering too much in industry. I also believe that too many party-hacks are appointed to the boards of such companies to reward those who fund political-parties. That surely is a bad criterion for assessing the competency of a director.

I also support privatisation generally because of the money raised from the sale of semi-state companies. The proceeds of the sake of Eircom went into the National Pension Reserve Fund, helping to ensure that the pensioners of tommorrow will be financially secure in their old-age. Besides this, the proceeds of privatisations could bring in colossal amounts of money to help speed up the National Development Plan, as well as to repair run-down school buildings.

I feel that the fact that Dublin Bus strikers can hold the capital to ransom due to the absence of competition only serves to strengthen the case for competition. As does the threats of the much-pampered workers in the ESB to shut down our electricity (they are paid 120,000 euro per annum and want an 18% pay rise). State-owned Monopolies encourage their workers to press for exorbitant pay demands because the consumer has no other companies to turn too.

The arguement that privatisation will lead to increased competition is not really that true in practice.
The ESB has had to raise its prices to allow competition as other companies didnt feel they could make a profit if they entered the Irish market. Ireland has gone in a very short space of time from the lowest electricity price in eurpoe to the second highest. BTW I have no idea where that figure of €120 000 comes from or who "they"are.

Eircom's stocks plumeted, they now have a small share of the irish market, they keep raising their prices, they no longer have a mobile phone network and irish mobile phone users pay the highest charges in europe. Hardly a great success for the consumer.

Remember Ray Burke? There is just as much corruption in the privatising of semistate bodies as there is in there running.

Dublin Bus doesnt have a monopoly, there is the LUAS and the DART, not to mention TAXIs

Irish Steal and the Irish Shipping company have both gone the way of the dodo. One was privatised the other wasnt so wether we get better management is debatable.


Deregulation and privatisation btw are two different things. You can allow competition without selling the state company, in the case of deregulating dublin bus more harm than good would be done as dublin bus will simply become less profitable. In deregulating aer rianta will actually create a monopoly for the dublin airport as cork and shannon are expected by the govs own report to go bust.

The reason the state provides services is because nobody else will provide them/ provide them cheaply/ can afford the start up costs.
If any of these reasons become redundant, as was the case with TSB then ill support it but the esb was doing the best job in europe and had several operations around the world. it was generating a profit. nothing good can come of privatisation, whats the logic?

chewy

whats the difference between rail and all the others ?

how is it a natural monolopy

simu

Besides this, the proceeds of privatisations could bring in colossal amounts of money to help speed up the National Development Plan, as well as to repair run-down school buildings.

How 'bout privatising schools?

arcadegame2004

Firstly there are no laws banning private airport or power management companies entering the Irish market. Airtricity (sp?) is an independant energy supplier and 6 out of the 9 airports in Ireland are managed by private companies.

Eirtricity are forbidden from supplying the consumer market and are only allowed to supply the business-market so I don't accept your point on that. I implore the Government to let the consumer have a choice. Let Eirtricity, Viridian, etc. enter the Irish CONSUMER market so that ESB unions can't hold the country to ransom like Dick Turpin.

Your point about the breakup of Aer Rianta is one I strongly contest. I suspect you are referring to the report by the board of Aer Rianta. They hardly are a neutral voice in this! They are probably just looking to protect their fat salaries and positions. Don't be so naieve! What do you expect them to say. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo.

Eircom's stocks plumeted, they now have a small share of the irish market, they keep raising their prices, they no longer have a mobile phone network and irish mobile phone users pay the highest charges in europe. Hardly a great success for the consumer.

The reason they have a smaller share of the Irish market is because consumers now have choice. When a monopoly loses its monopoly-status and competition is allowed in, naturally the market-share of the monopoly will fall, and that can only be good for consumers' right to choose. Regarding their share price, I simply reply that all share values have their ups and downs. The stock-market is like taking a bet at the races and I anyone with sense knows that. A wise man or woman would have sold the shares when they were around 5 euro. Regarding the point about mobile-phone charges, I reply that while this is probably true, prices would be even higher without competition in this sector. At least if you're unhappy with Meteor/Vodafone/O2's call charges you can choose someone with a lower price. These companies have a natural incentive to undercut each other's prices because otherwise they will lose market-share to a rival. The competition-authority should investigate whether there are cartels in this sector (as well as in the insurance, pharmacy, and pub sectors) however.

Eircom's high line-rental charges will be brought down when competition is introduced in the line-rental sector as is planned. Had Eircom remained in the public-sector then they would have had no incentive to reduce prices because they would just run to the Government if they made losses, instead of lowering prices to get consumer's back. If Eircom are losing market share, then isn't it good that we consumers have to right to give them a good kicking by denying them our custom? And isn't it great that we can no longer be held to ransom by the Telecom Eireann trade-unions, who could have shut down the network if the Government didn't bow to their every whim? And hopefully we will eventually have the right to do the same to the ESB.

Dublin Bus doesnt have a monopoly

It has a monopoly on Bus transport within Dublin.

State-guaranteed monopoly-status means that the consumer's interests do not count. These companies have NO incentive to improve the quality of their services or reduce their prices because no matter how annoyed the consumer gets with them there's no escape from them. They can't seek refuge from appalling service or high prices by choosing another company. I say let the people decide, in the spirit of democracy, who will supply their electricity, gas etc.

Carpo

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

Your point about the breakup of Aer Rianta is one I strongly contest. I suspect you are referring to the report by the board of Aer Rianta. They hardly are a neutral voice in this! They are probably just looking to protect their fat salaries and positions. Don't be so naieve! What do you expect them to say. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo.

Do you have any info to validate this? All youre saying is "Theyre lying and I'm not." You also neglected to mention how exactly Aer Rianta have a monopoly and what laws ban any other company from entering the market.

ZENER

State-guaranteed monopoly-status means that the consumer's interests do not count.

I think this one has been done to death here. I'd find it difficult to believe that a private company would provide a service where loss is the likely outcome day in day out as with Dublin Bus. In the case of all those loss making routes that they service who do you think benefits ? The consumer who wouldn't have the service of course and not a company who's only goal is to line it's pockets.

Lets take the example of you apparent idol here, Mr O'Leary. An report last week told where Ryanair passengers were left stranded for almost 24 hours without any assistance from their airline - Ryanair - do you applaud them for this. If that had been any other airline including AerLingus those passengers would have been well looked after. Why can't you support any of your statements here, all you have succeeded in doing in this thread is raking up old arguments and forcing your views on them without any attempt at addressing the issues raised by others.

Eirtricity are forbidden from supplying the consumer market and are only allowed to supply the business-market so I don't accept your point on that.

Eirtricity generate power which is distributed on the NATIONAL grid that the Irish Tax Payer paid for in much the same way that we paid for the telecommunications network. Is a new power generator going to finance a totally new distribution system - of course not. Instead they will benefit from the already in place infrastructure that they have not paid for and are then allowed to cream off profits from it and blame the aforementioned infrastructure when their service fails - we can't win here can we.

Your point about the breakup of Aer Rianta is one I strongly contest. I suspect you are referring to the report by the board of Aer Rianta.

No I'm not !! I don't need any report to tell me how many airports are in Ireland or that they are managed by private companies - you are avoiding the point here !

And isn't it great that we can no longer be held to ransom by the Telecom Eireann trade-unions, who could have shut down the network if the Government didn't bow to their every whim? And hopefully we will eventually have the right to do the same to the ESB.

A completely separate issue but suffice to say that if a trade union at your place of work managed to get you a good rate of pay and conditions with a pension scheme that will see you right when you retire without the need to impose on the state you wouldn't be here giving out about it would you ??

All youre saying is "Theyre lying and I'm not."

He's not even saying that, he's saying "listen to me I'm right I know everything but I don't have to prove it so there !"

ZEN

thejollyrodger

I dont think anyone could be in favor of blanket privatisation. It defintely should be taken on a case by case basis.

In regards to the air policy, agree with the current government approach of diving up the 3 airports into seperate entities but under government control.

Air lingus needs to be sold off since the government cant interveen to prop it up any more( EU rules)

Aer Rianta is a joke. Just looking afters its own unions.

Dublin urgently needs at least a 2nd or 3rd runway. It also needs at least a 2nd or possible 3rd terminal not the mickey mouse Aer Rianta jobs.

1/2 of this is being blocked by the likes of Aer Rianta looking after its own :mad:

therecklessone

Originally posted by thejollyrodger


Dublin urgently needs at least a 2nd or 3rd runway. It also needs at least a 2nd or possible 3rd terminal not the mickey mouse Aer Rianta jobs.

1/2 of this is being blocked by the likes of Aer Rianta looking after its own :mad:

Dublin does need a 2nd runway. And Aer Rianta recognise this, and are actively pursuing it. The development is being opposed by local pressure groups, particularly the noisier ones in Portmarnock/Malahide.

Victor

Originally posted by therecklessone
Dublin does need a 2nd runway. And Aer Rianta recognise this, and are actively pursuing it. The development is being opposed by local pressure groups, particularly the noisier ones in Portmarnock/Malahide.

The pun being of course that they are objecting to potential noise levels.

lucernarian

I am very surprised that Aer Lingus needs €1 billion investment. What would the money be spent on? Aircraft and the expenses that go with it? Advertisements? Surely a smaller sum of money could do if indeed there is a need to invest in the first place? Let Aer Lingus use its retained profits to improve the company. By "forseeable future" I meant a few years given no very serious mishaps happen. Of course I don't know this. Perhaps I should have added "IMO" to that comment.

Why should we sell something that makes money for the state? We should get rid of the more inefficient State companies, i.e. loss-making companies.

Btw would Mr. O'Leary bring a second terminal quicker to Dublin Airport than Aer Rianta or whoever succeeds them?

Victor

I wonder how the ministers will feel when Michael O'Leary gets the contract. (he already has a taxi licence).

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/3527248?view=Eircomnet

Civilian drivers to replace gardai in cash-saving move
From:The Irish Independent
Monday, 5th July, 2004

DETECTIVE gardai who act as drivers for government ministers are to be replaced by civilian drivers in a money-saving move.

The decision will also increase the number of gardai available for detective work at garda headquarters, it is believed.

The new civilian drivers will be paid a flat salary for their work, saving hundreds of thousands of euros for the State.

Drivers for Ministers of State are currently employed on a fixed wage but the Cabinet employs 28 garda drivers.

However, the move may not apply to ministers who have security requirements, such as the Justice Minister and the Taoiseach.

Garda drivers currently receive a significant amount of overtime pay, as well as a range of expenses.

But while senior gardai are expected to welcome the move, it is expected that rank and file gardai will resent the loss of posts.

Ministers who have forged friendships with their drivers may also regret the decision to drop gardai from the posts, but others are already known to resent the fact that gardai are not obliged to drive politicians on private business.

Figures last year revealed that the cost of running State cars for Cabinet ministers was €2.9m, meaning that taxpayers have had to foot a total bill of almost €5m for Government ministers' transportation.

Opposition TDs are deeply suspicious of whether ministers use their cars just for State business.

As well as the 13 Government ministers, the President, the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste, Chief Whip, Ceann Comhairle, Attorney General, Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Justice and former Taoisigh and Presidents are entitled to use State cars under laws drawn up in 1940.

The Department of Justice said that there are no set rules as to when ministerial cars are replaced but those that are two years old and/or have 100,000 miles on the clock are considered for replacement.

Ben Quinn

arcadegame2004

Why should we sell something that makes money for the state? We should get rid of the more inefficient State companies, i.e. loss-making companies.

Aer Lingus makes a profit for Aer Lingus. But the board obviously must feel that it needs 1 billion Euro if it is to achieve it's stated aim of making serious inroads into the US market. And they would know better than us.

Regarding loss-making companies, it is difficult for a state-owned monopoly to make a loss with no one competing with it, or at least not being allowed to compete with it on an equal footing e.g. bar on private companies competing in the CONSUMER market for electricity.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Regarding loss-making companies, it is difficult for a state-owned monopoly to make a loss with no one competing with it, or at least not being allowed to compete with it on an equal footing e.g. bar on private companies competing in the CONSUMER market for electricity.

Tell me how deregulation of the electricity market (happening anyway and about 50% complete) will stop a rogue union cutting off your electricty, seeing as the power will come over the same cables anyway?

chewy

it is difficult for a state-owned monopoly to make a loss with no one competing with it

huh i though cie was a lossmaking company and it was dong it with pinache!


arcade still havn't come back on the difference in realation to rail

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by chewy
arcade still havn't come back on the difference in realation to rail

It is different because unlike the other sectors, it is extremely hard to see how effective competition could be introduced in this sector of industry. I mean it is hardly practical to build 10 tracks from dublin to cork, each track being the property of a rail-company and with each track/rail company competing against others is it?

huh i thought cie was a lossmaking company and it was dong it with pinache!

I said difficult. I did not say impossible. But CIE isn't a monopoly now. It's just a bureaucratic nightmare and a burden on the State. Can't wait for it to be dissected and sold off. Remember the ILDA strike a few years back? 11 weeks! Semo-state's are strike-ridden and the people are fed up of it.

chewy

i thought that rail was privatised in britain?

i thought it was privatised/sold off route(track) by route(track)?

so when you said rail coudn't be privitised i was confused by what you meant? see?

are perhaps thats whats they mean by deregulation? not a business head me...



and anyway it didn't work in britain it failed with pinache!


am i spelling "pinache" right it's my new word of week

monument

Eircom is the prime example of why privatisation is extremely wrong. Deregulation, if done right, on the other hand is a far more positive thing.

The government sets up, and sells what is to be a non-state-owned monopoly, Eircom (inc the country’s phone lines). New Eircom owners try to make as much short-term profit as possible – at any cost. The phone network is now apparently in shambles. Government starts to set up a new communication network (MAN) - at that a new state-owned communications network.

A state should never let infrastructure fall into private control – infrastructure it self should not be something for companies to milk profit from. It should be for ‘the people’, as well as to facilitate companies to do their business (from commutating, to buying and selling, to transporting).

As for any state owned companies that are badly managed, the problems should be fixed and not transferred to a completely unaccountable parties.

chewy

you'll have to explain the precise difference between deregulation and privitisation


couldn't buses that run on unproftible out of the way routes be consider be considered infrastructure?

monument

Sorry about that, an error on my part, I’ll rephrase…

Privatisation of the actually networks (whether it’s the rail lines, commutations lines or airways, bus stops, ports, or airports) is extremely wrong and counterproductive.

While privatisation to the extent of allowing more then one bus company to stop at the side of the road OR operate certain lines etc can be a positive thing when the state retains some control and accountably.

arcadegame2004

so when you said rail coudn't be privitised i was confused by what you meant? see?

Shouldn't is what I said/meant. I accept rail as an exception to the rule.

jd

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I mean it is hardly practical to build 10 tracks from dublin to cork, each track being the property of a rail-company and with each track/rail company competing against others is it?

Explain how you can build 10 electricity transmission networks?

BuffyBot

Originally posted by jd
Explain how you can build 10 electricity transmission networks?

...specially when the workers are being paid 120000 a year or some other unverified figure....

oscarBravo

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
Dublin urgently needs at least a 2nd or 3rd runway.

Last time I looked, Dublin had three runways. From memory, 10/28, 11/29 and 16/34.

therecklessone

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Last time I looked, Dublin had three runways. From memory, 10/28, 11/29 and 16/34.

Look again, 11/29 hasn't been used in nearly two years.

What he meant, and I think you know this, was a parallel 10/28 to cater for increased demand.

Current ATC ops forbid the use of 16/34 when 10/28 is the active, except for ILS training for IMES.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by therecklessone
What he meant, and I think you know this, was a parallel 10/28 to cater for increased demand.

I've occasionally seen some queueing for departure at Dublin, but I can't remember ever being in a hold pattern on approach. A parallel runway would be useful for future growth, but is it really that urgent?

therecklessone

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I've occasionally seen some queueing for departure at Dublin, but I can't remember ever being in a hold pattern on approach. A parallel runway would be useful for future growth, but is it really that urgent?

Yes. A parallel runway would allow full utilisation of 3nm seperation on the approach, which is legal but rarely used in the current setup due to the need to integrate departures into the arrival stream.

With some tweaking Dublin can accomodate 2/3 more a/c per hour but thats it. Its not that bad most of the time, but as anyone who flew in the Sunday before last can tell you, you would have faced about 20-25 minutes holding from roughly 11am up to 4pm.

Weekend holiday charters place a huge strain on Dublin operations.

Sleepy

Monopoly = inefficienct. State run organisation = inefficienct. Combine the two and you get a disasterous situation like we have in this country. The free market is the only economic tool we have that even approaches something like efficiency. The balls up of the Eircom situation arose imho from handing such a large chunk of the company to the board and workers - basically handing control of the company over to those who ran it into the ground in the first place.

Privatisation should be overseen by a management team who don't stand to make millions in the short-run. I'd love to see it performed by the likes of KMPG/Accenture/Ernst&Young etc. on a equity deal (i.e. a stakeholding instead of a consultancy fee) whereby they couldn't sell their interest for a minimum of 5-7 years (forcing them to run the company for the medium - long term instead of the short.

Aer Lingus - Should definitely be sold. At present, the companies keeping it's head above water but is in need of investment the government isn't allowed to introduce. While it's in this position, the company should be able to perform quite well in a floatation instead of leaving it a few years until the floatation would be a last minute bail out job.

Aer Rianta is so damn inefficient I'd almost support giving the thing away to a proven union buster that had experience in the field.

The public sector should be run like the private in terms of how it deals with employees. If my company chose to relocate to the arse-hole of nowhere (and being based in Deans Grange you could argue that we already are) I'd either have to move with them or find a new job. There'd be none of this messing about with the current government decentralisation plan. And I could guarantee it'd be organised and executed better.

Civil Servants are, in general, lazy, indignant, over-paid and run by overtly militant unions. No private company would tolerate their behaviour and tbh I don't think we as their employers (by virtue of being taxpayers) should tolerate it either.

monument

Originally posted by Sleepy
The balls up of the Eircom situation arose imho from handing such a large chunk of the company to the board and workers - basically handing control of the company over to those who ran it into the ground in the first place.

No, at all, the main 'balls up' of the whole Eircom thing was handing the country's phone lines into private hands creating a private monopoly, then quick profit making at the same time letting the phone network fall into shambles.

The lines should have been opening it up to companies, and the state should have retained overall ownership.

“Privatisation should be overseen by a management team who don't stand to make millions in the short-run.”

You’re getting a tad bit confused, that’s not the ‘free market’, as you put it. Aer Lingus, would most likely end up in the hands of a large airline, which does not have Ireland’s interests in mind.

As for the way you’re talking about Aer Rianta, it sounds as if you want to go down the Eircom route.

arcadegame2004

Aer Lingus, would most likely end up in the hands of a large airline, which does not have Ireland’s interests in mind.

Excuse me? Do you realise that Ireland exports more (in monetary terms) computer-equipment than any other country in the world? Do you realise that trade between the US and Ireland is double that of trade between the US and China?

You are very naieve if you seriously believe that airlines will stop flying here if Aer Lingus is privatised. There is clearly a profitable market in the 1.8 million Irish people living outside this state. There is clearly a profitable market in the travels of Irish tourists to visit their American/British/Australian etc. relatives abroad. There is clearly a profit to be made in the travels of businessmen back and forth over the Atlantic between Ireland and America.

Where there is a profit to be made, the airlines will be interested in exploiting that. And you are wrong.

chewy

its seems to me that you are very either or in the situation

i think public sectors unions(unions in general ) are very sluggish and selfish (you shouldn't expect/demand a job for life these days?)

but i don't see privitisation as the cure for their high demands



i still don't see the difference with rail excpet we have a very recent of example of privitation at it's worst

monument

What did I say...

A) "which does not have Ireland’s interests in mind."

"they'll stop flying here"

I love when people put words in mouth.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Chewy
but i don't see privitisation as the cure for their high demands

I disagree. They are afraid to go on strike as much in the private-sector because they are much easier to sack there, with their sackings not getting nearly as much public-attention. For this reason, they are usually far more reluctant to make mad pay-demands unlike the ESB officers union demanding 18%.

The ink isn't even dry on the new pay-deal yet and their already breaking it...:o

chewy

thanks for the reply arcade..

but i reckon nobody should post to this thread until arcade gets proff of his 120,000e claim? he did start this thread






but the argeument seems to have gone onto others threads anyway

arcadegame2004

Chewy I remember hearing the 120,000 or thereabouts figure a few years ago, maybe on RTE news or something, in relation to ESB officers. It is the ESB officers' union that is threatening the strike. Interestingly, a trade-union official admitted on Morning Ireland this morning that the trade-union threatening this strike would be in breach of the no-strike clause of the national-wage agreement Sustaining Progress. Why should the Government keeps its side of the bargain e.g. on benchmarking, if the unions won't? If the strike does go ahead then I feel the Government should dock the pay of strikers.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
If the strike does go ahead then I feel the Government should dock the pay of strikers.

Eh, you do realise you don't get paid for days you are on strike, don't you?

arcadegame2004

Eh, you do realise you don't get paid for days you are on strike, don't you?

I don't realise that. Because remember during the ASTI that when there was media speculation that the Government might dock striking-teachers' pay, it emerged that they could not do this without breaching the Data Protection Act. I would call for an amendment to this Act to be passed to allow this information to be used in the event of strikes detrimental to the public-interest.

bobbyjoe

Not 100% sure but wasn't the issue during the ASTI thing that they refused to supervise the yard during the breaks (which they had been doing for nothing for years, not to mention all of the non paid extra curricular stuff thay do) and the schools had to close due to no supervision not due to a strike.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I don't realise that.

Thats such a noob admission. Did you honestly think during the what 15 months (?) of the miners strike, that they were all raking it in?

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I don't realise that. Because remember during the ASTI that when there was media speculation that the Government might dock striking-teachers' pay, it emerged that they could not do this without breaching the Data Protection Act. I would call for an amendment to this Act to be passed to allow this information to be used in the event of strikes detrimental to the public-interest.

The Department had proposed accessing teachers pay files to see whether they were ASTI members (by seeing if they paid membership fees to the ASTI) and remove pay that way. The infomation was collected for one reason and it was being proposed to use it for another, unauthorised reason, whcih would have been in breach of hte Data Protection Act. Hence it wasn't done.