Engineers Ireland's comment on An Tánaiste's remarks

godtabh

Ms Coughlan is a twat

THE TÁNAISTE has warned a number of professions that the Government will not back down in its drive to increase competition and get better value as it tackles the economic crisis.

Specifying “engineers, architects, the legal profession, dentists and others”, Mary Coughlan told the MacGill Summer School at Glenties, Co Donegal, last night she would be submitting a report to Government on the issue before the end of the year.

Observing that there were sectors which had yet to feel the “chill winds of economic reality”, the Tánaiste said “certain professions” had yet to reveal how they intended to reduce fees and charges and she went on to accuse them of “economic conceit”.

Pointing out that the Competition Authority had issued a number of reports on sectors such as professional services, banking and utilities, she said implementing its recommendations was essential to remove “bottlenecks” in the way of competition. She stressed the need to eliminate “structural rigidities” that had contributed to high costs, and said there was a concerted effort on the part of Government to “challenge vested interests across the sheltered economy”.

In response to questions on the McCarthy report on public service staffing and expenditure, Ms Coughlan said she had instructed her department and think-tank Forfás to carry out an evaluation across all Government departments, assessing the impact of the report on employment and on the productive sector.

Responding to a question on opportunities for unemployed people with minimal education, Ms Coughlan said: “everyone has a role”.

“This is where McCarthy runs into trouble because there is no social policy perspective and that is because it is basically dealing with money,” she added.

Addressing a session entitled “Creating the Smart Economy”, she said: “It is my view that we must never again allow costs to drift out of line with those of our competitors. We have learned a harsh lesson, but as a Government we have acted with resolve and will continue to take the necessary actions to restore our external competitiveness.

“There is more work to be done. There are certain sectors where competition and the chill winds of economic reality have yet to reach. Certain professions have yet to play their part and have yet to tell us how they will reduce their fees and charges. There is no place in an Ireland where the majority have to make painful choices for this level of economic conceit from any sector.”

The Tánaiste told the school: “The Competition Authority has tended to focus its efforts, especially its advocacy efforts, on the non-traded sectors of the economy.

“The authority has issued a number of reports in the past few years on non-traded sectors, including the areas of banking, utilities and professional services such as engineers, architects, the legal profession, dentists and others.

“Implementation of the authority’s recommendations is essential to remove competitiveness bottlenecks in the economy and to deliver better value and more innovation in those sectors.

“It is my intention to submit a report to Government before the end of the year outlining the progress achieved on the implementation of these prioritised recommendations.

“Across Government there is already a concerted approach to eliminate structural rigidities and competition bottlenecks that have contributed to high costs. Just last month, for example, we confirmed our intention to ban upward-only rent reviews. My colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, is also taking action to drive down health costs.

“These are examples of the cross-Government effort under way; an effort that must challenge vested interests across the sheltered economy,” the Tánaiste said.

Engineers Ireland wrote:

You may have heard or read An Tánaiste Mary Coughlan T.D.’s comments last week regarding certain professions, including engineering, increasing their competitiveness and delivering better value for the benefit of the economy http://members.engineersireland.ie/link.asp?ymlink=69747
You may have also read the subsequent letters from architects and engineers that have been published in the national media since.

As the representative body of all engineers in Ireland, we have regular meetings with Government ministers where we keep them updated on issues within the profession. Just 36 hours after the Tanaiste’s comments, I met with Minister for Labour Affairs Dara Calleary T.D. to brief him on our CPD Accredited Employer Scheme, the contribution that engineers make to Ireland’s economic well being and the key role that the profession will play in achieving the Government’s objectives in relation to the Smart Economy. I showed the Minister the clean bill of health letter we received from the Competition Authority following their analysis of our Profession as well as speaking with him about our belief that the regulation / licensing of the profession is necessary in order to maintain standards. I also took the opportunity to express my dismay at An Tanaiste’s remarks and our disappointment that she was so poorly informed.
I did stress to Minister Calleary that we will engineer our way out of this recession.

We have chosen not to respond to the comments in the newspapers via the letters pages of the national media nor write directly to An Tanaiste at this time, primarily because of the timing of our meeting with Minister Calleary. We have a plan in place that will help us achieve our overall goals and we believe that we should stick to this path, using private meetings with ministers to further our cause. However we will continue to use the media, in all its facets, when the occasion requires and circumstances allow.

I do hope this clarifies our position.

I normally don’t give a **** about politicians but this really pissed me off.

The engineering sector feeling the pinch during the recessionary times. Architects and engineers have probably taken the biggest hit as a result of the building down turn.

Many companies are struggling to keep staff and pay bills.

Many companies are struggling to get fees paid.

Even during the good times our fees were small when compared to Architects within the private sector. Public sector varied from place to place and how accountable the person signing the cheques was

Jonathan

I got the email too.

I had to laugh at "we will engineer our way out of this recession".

How cheesy.

Turbulent Bill

TBH I wasn't even aware of Coughlan's comments until the EI email arrived this morning, so I'm not sure if they had any real impact. It sounds like just sabre-rattling, but completely unjustified anyway (at least for the engineering bit - we're perfect ).

Ironically EI's poor / non-existent regulation of the engineering sector is a good defence here - if there are basically no barriers to entry, anyone is able to set professional fees at whatever level they like, and the market can vote with its feet. I don't know about the other sectors, but I get the impression that they're more regulated.

godtabh

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

Ironically EI's poor / non-existent regulation of the engineering sector is a good defence here - if there are basically no barriers to entry, anyone is able to set professional fees at whatever level they like, and the market can vote with its feet. I don't know about the other sectors, but I get the impression that they're more regulated.

That’s not true. They are very strict on who they let in in terms of membership and are very protective of their titles.

Companies set fees. If the IEI or any one else were to control this it would lead to very uncompetitive industry. In addition tight fees can lead to innovation which as I said before engineers generally get the short end of the stick

The IEI publishes forms of contract, expected rates etc but they cant enforce them

Johnniep

I got the email too and I think it is absolutely crazy the EI (or whatever they are calling themselves these days!) think that background meetings and the like is an appropriate response. I was annoyed at Coughlans remarks, but wasn't surprised by them. I am so pi**ed off at EI and their complete lack of a stance on this......there should be a response and a very public one at that, but instead they are leaving it to the RIAI. In comparison, the RIAI's rely was so so much better. The was only response from an engineer, responding on her own!

EI totally justifying their subscriptions on this one!

godtabh

I've just emailed John Power. i'll post back if I get a response

Red Alert

I'm disappointed with EI's response and I think it's inadequete. Basically what they're saying in a nutshell is: the government aren't listening to us, but we'll keep playing ball with them, and not upset them. Well, the other professions such as the doctors, pharmacists, train drivers etc are all well aware how to engineer a situation in the media. As a member of EI I'm going to write back and say that I think a more public campaign is warranted and that I consider their response inadequete in the extreme.

Look at Dail Eireann- full of publicans and teachers - how exactly are we going to 'engineer' a recovery without engineers in decision making roles?

godtabh

Red Alert wrote: »

Look at Dail Eireann- full of publicans and teachers - how exactly are we going to 'engineer' a recovery without engineers in decision making roles?

How many engineers could take the time of to campagin and still have a job left if they didnt get in? Not many.

Teachers/publicans/others dont seem to have this worry

It would be interesting to see if we get anything back from the IEI

Turbulent Bill

kearnsr wrote: »

That’s not true. They are very strict on who they let in in terms of membership and are very protective of their titles.

Companies set fees. If the IEI or any one else were to control this it would lead to very uncompetitive industry. In addition tight fees can lead to innovation which as I said before engineers generally get the short end of the stick

The IEI publishes forms of contract, expected rates etc but they cant enforce them

The only title EI protects is "Chartered Engineer", which is only really relevant for civils - there is no benefit (professional or financial) for mechs, for example, to become chartered. Everyone else is left fend for themselves (ordinary membership as an "engineer" gives no legal protection), hence EI could hardly be accused of distorting the market. There was a long thread on this forum recently on the protection (or lack of) that EI gives to the engineering profession as a whole.

I'm not suggesting at all that EI set professional fees, more that architects, lawyers etc. may have more of a competitiveness case to answer given that their title protection is strict and (presumably) this leads to higher charges. The vast numbers of architects being let go though shows that they are feeling the pinch badly, so the Tanaiste really doesn't have clue.

Out of interest, do you have a link to the EI contracts, expected rates etc.?

Turbulent Bill

Red Alert wrote: »

I'm disappointed with EI's response and I think it's inadequete. Basically what they're saying in a nutshell is: the government aren't listening to us, but we'll keep playing ball with them, and not upset them. Well, the other professions such as the doctors, pharmacists, train drivers etc are all well aware how to engineer a situation in the media. As a member of EI I'm going to write back and say that I think a more public campaign is warranted and that I consider their response inadequete in the extreme.

Look at Dail Eireann- full of publicans and teachers - how exactly are we going to 'engineer' a recovery without engineers in decision making roles?

+1, EI's response was far too soft - why no reply in public when there's nothing to hide? The story is old news now, and without a public rebuttal the general public will have the wrong impression that engineers charge too much. Telling a junior minister in private about CPD schemes doesn't cut it.

They'll be getting an email from me too.

Red Alert

I have sent the DG of EI an email, let's see what (if anything) is said about it.

dan_d

I sent an email directly to John Power over the weekend, and to be fair, got a response this morning. Again, to be fair, he was quite honest in his response ( I'm not going to copy it here as it refers to a few other things that I aired an opinion on!!!!) but his point is basically that it is not in the best interest of EI to involved in a "public spat" with the Tanaiste, particularly over something that referred to several professions. He says that it delights the media to have column inches filled however he seriously doubts any letters to national papers have any effect whatsoever on anyone in Government. Also that the media love bad news and have very little interest in good news, and for the most part, engineers add value rather than cause problems.
The man has a point I suppose......and those who know can see the Tanaiste is displaying a complete lack of knowledge about what's going on. It doesn't make me feel much better, but I suppose it's just a case of being the bigger "person" and getting on with it.

godtabh

dan_d wrote: »

The man has a point I suppose......and those who know can see the Tanaiste is displaying a complete lack of knowledge about what's going on. It doesn't make me feel much better, but I suppose it's just a case of being the bigger "person" and getting on with it.

given the pr the people in the know are in the minority

dan_d

That's not all that unusual when it comes to engineering though really, is it? Doesn't make it any less annoying though.

Red Alert

dan_d wrote: »

I sent an email directly to John Power over the weekend, and to be fair, got a response this morning. Again, to be fair, he was quite honest in his response ( I'm not going to copy it here as it refers to a few other things that I aired an opinion on!!!!) but his point is basically that it is not in the best interest of EI to involved in a "public spat" with the Tanaiste, particularly over something that referred to several professions. He says that it delights the media to have column inches filled however he seriously doubts any letters to national papers have any effect whatsoever on anyone in Government. Also that the media love bad news and have very little interest in good news, and for the most part, engineers add value rather than cause problems.
The man has a point I suppose......and those who know can see the Tanaiste is displaying a complete lack of knowledge about what's going on. It doesn't make me feel much better, but I suppose it's just a case of being the bigger "person" and getting on with it.

I got a similar response, and while I think he did respond very well to my comments I still fundamentally disagree with not going public. The simple fact is that politics is carried out in the media, not in the dail.