Check in to Dáil, but no check out ?

Liam Byrne

Surely this is still rife with potential for abuse ?

OK, so they have to go to Dublin, but there's still nothing to stop them fecking off for the day to the nearest race meeting or soccer match - or even calling in for 5 mins before flying somewhere from Dublin Airport.

Why wasn't a proper system put in ?

donkey balls

Liam i believe some TD's refused a system in which they had to clock out(due to security issues:rolleyes:) what planet are they living on (maybe planet bertie:D) for the best part of my working life i have been clocking in/out of work with my company id badge even the MD/VP had to sign in/out at our reception when their id badge was not programed for Ireland.
and another piont i would like to make if someone clocks in and leaves without clocking out what happens if there was a fire how are they to be accounted for?.

and as usual the silence is deafening from the oposition:eek:

PeakOutput

really? that really is ridicolous

CFlower

Nail on head.

I heard a TD on the radio two weeks ago saying that the clocking in would be no bother, as most TDs dropped in to pick up their mail and could sign in at the same time.
The RTE interviewer saw no harm in this.

This was always common practice with Dublin City Councillors too - nip in, sign book, nip out again.

Well. We vote for them.

Erren Music

CFlower wrote: »

Nail on head.

I heard a TD on the radio two weeks ago saying that the clocking in would be no bother, as most TDs dropped in to pick up their mail and could sign in at the same time.
The RTE interviewer saw no harm in this.

This was always common practice with Dublin City Councillors too - nip in, sign book, nip out again.

Well. We vote for them.

Why is anyone suprised anymore.

This is from a government of unbelievable incompetence, Biffo is running the ship blindfolded, in a cellar on dry land. All the advice he is getting is coming from the people who crashed the last ship.

FFS they are unable to deal with their own inhouse corruption.

Oh and finally, the paedo's are still running our primary schools

It's a FCUKIN MAD HOUSE

anymore

It is only a public relations sop.
MANY MEPs as a matter of routine have as a matter of routine signed into euro register and headed to the airport to go home.
I believe the matter was considered on this site previousily.
This will be the same thing for TDs
They refused bar coding for free envelopes.

hallelujajordan

CFlower wrote: »

Nail on head.

I heard a TD on the radio two weeks ago saying that the clocking in would be no bother, as most TDs dropped in to pick up their mail and could sign in at the same time.
The RTE interviewer saw no harm in this.

This was always common practice with Dublin City Councillors too - nip in, sign book, nip out again.

Well. We vote for them.

The purpose of the clock-in system is not to make sure that each TD spends a certain amount of time in Dail Eireann . . . Feel free to correct me but as far as i am aware there is no requirement for TD's to spend any time at all in the house or in the chamber . . . When we vote for them in a General Election we place our trust in them to represent us in the manner that they see fit. If they don't represent us appropriately in DE then we get the chance to exact the ultimate judgement 5 years (or sooner) down the line.

The purpose is to add an element of vouched-ness (new word ?) to the payment of their expenses. TD's are entitled to claim expenses when they travel to Dublin and this system will create an electronic record that confirms that they were indeed in Dublin, in Dail Eireann at the times claimed. . .

Honestly, if we have to put our TD's on a time clock then we have elected the wrong people and we are wasting our time anyway !

Annasopra

anymore wrote: »

They refused bar coding for free envelopes.

Did they? Got a link?

anymore

I am afraid honest is not a word I use frequently in regard to Irish politicians. :mad:

anymore

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Did they? Got a link?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0711/1224250465714.html

The body said it regretted the decision by TDs and Senators not to accept barcoding of Oireachtas envelopes to prevent improper use. For years, there have been complaints the State-paid envelopes were passed on by Oireachtas members to councillors, which they should not be.
TDs accepted barcoding, but changed their minds after opposition from Senators, most of whom are elected by councillors. This meant “that there can be no assurance that €2.7 million of public resources” were being properly used, the commission said.

donkey balls

thats another question i will have for the local TD's when ever they crawl out knocking on doors looking for votes.

Liam Byrne

anymore wrote: »

They refused bar coding for free envelopes.

Someone from the Dáil sent me an official-looking letter complete with the harp during the run-up to Lisbon 2......


......turns out it was an ad for a local FF election councillor.

I presume he somehow knew that I would have simply binned it if I'd realised it wasn't official and was just a begging letter for a vote.

I complained to the local radio station about abuse of official State resources.

zootroid

During the week we received a letter in a Dail Eireann envelope, from a local Fianna Fail councillor whose father is a Fianna Fail TD. But this is the first instance I've seen it happen. And I presume they're all at it.

expectationlost

could expenses be connected to time in and votes, often votes happen late at night...

ednwireland

notice how the new pension and retirement ages doesnt apply to td's and ministers pensions either

hallelujajordan

expectationlost wrote: »

could expenses be connected to time in and votes, often votes happen late at night...

. . . . and should we pay them overtime if they have to stay late in the evening to vote ? ? ? . . . .

This debate is foolish . . We don't (and shouldn't) treat our TD's as employees who are paid and measured by the hour. . There is no requirement for our TD's to be in the house or the chamber for any period of time . . If we don't like how they have represented us then we won't vote for them again . .

The mechanism that has recently been implemented is a simple, yet effective way to confirm that our TD's attended DE on the days they said they did.

hallelujajordan

ednwireland wrote: »

notice how the new pension and retirement ages doesnt apply to td's and ministers pensions either

Nor did the old one, what is your point ?

Where else in society do you have to compete for your job once every 5 years ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Nor did the old one, what is your point ?

I presume the point is that they promised to make the expenses and other payments acceptable through reform.

They haven't.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Where else in society do you have to compete for your job once every 5 years ?

Where else in society can you still get paid the difference between your former wages and that of your replacement while you're employed elsewhere, and still have that to go back to if your change of career doesn't work ?

And BTW, the answer to your question is nowhere; in most jobs you don't have 4 years extra to get it right; if you're crap, you're out asap within the probation period.

On the other hand, if you're good enough you're kept on.

Nothing wrong with that, and no reason why TDs should have extra insurance against being crap.

Erren Music

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Where else in society can you still get paid the difference between your former wages and that of your replacement while you're employed elsewhere, and still have that to go back to if your change of career doesn't work ?

where else can you be forced out of your job for committing criminal acts, but still keep your TD job, and still receive a pension and a 50 grand payoff for losing the ministerial position.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Where else in society can you still get paid the difference between your former wages and that of your replacement while you're employed elsewhere, and still have that to go back to if your change of career doesn't work ?

Disingenuous . . Only if you have come from the public sector.

And BTW, the answer to your question is nowhere; in most jobs you don't have 4 years extra to get it right; if you're crap, you're out asap within the probation period.

On the other hand, if you're good enough you're kept on.

Nothing wrong with that, and no reason why TDs should have extra insurance against being crap.

Great, loving your version of democracy . . a performance assessment on TD's, what ... once a year ?, by vote ? Expensive exercise don't you think and might make it impossible to get any actual legislative work done . . and if they pass probation do they get made permanent like the rest of us ? Do they get to stay on forever with the protection of the unfair dismissals act etc (like the rest of us) ? I'm sure most TD's would trade that deal for a pensionable age of 68 !

We need to stop being silly about this . . Expenses reform is not about turning our TD's into time-carded employees.

hallelujajordan

Erren Music wrote: »

where else can you be forced out of your job for committing criminal acts, but still keep your TD job, and still receive a pension and a 50 grand payoff for losing the ministerial position.

Who committed the criminal act ?

(And before you answer you ought to remember that all Irish citizens have a right to the presumption of innocence :0) and that the minister you are likely talking about has not been charged or convicted of a crime and in fact if you are talking about perjury probably never committed any crime . . He was forced out of office because he made foolish mistakes and the government partners lost confidence in him, not because he committed a crime)

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Disingenuous . . Only if you have come from the public sector.

But still applicable to a large majority, and in fact could be the reason for half of the problems, since it means that a subset have nothing to lose by giving it a go.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Great, loving your version of democracy . . a performance assessment on TD's, what ... once a year ?, by vote ? Expensive exercise don't you think and might make it impossible to get any actual legislative work done . . and if they pass probation do they get made permanent like the rest of us ? Do they get to stay on forever with the protection of the unfair dismissals act etc (like the rest of us) ?

Please don't twist what I said.

I never proposed this, I just replied to your comment about being judged every 5 years with the fact that a normal person is continually judged and can get let go if they don't do their job well. BTW - if you don't do your job well, or bring a company into disrepute, the "unfair dismissals act" will not save you.

And since when have you ever heard of a "permanent" job ? Even after probation, if you're not up to the job, you can still be demoted or let go. Even if you ARE up to the job, you can still be let go (just ask any former Dell employees).

So please don't shovel on the pathos about how the poor TDs are disadvantage and deserve extra compensation and insurance.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

We need to stop being silly about this . . Expenses reform is not about turning our TD's into time-carded employees.

But we do need accountability and value for money. The very fact that they can still claim unvouched expenses to the tune of a minimum-wage, part-time salary - unvouched - is indicative of the level of willingness for actual reform.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Please don't twist what I said.

I never proposed this, I just replied to your comment about being judged every 5 years with the fact that a normal person is continually judged and can get let go if they don't do their job well.

Yeah you did . . you implied pretty clearly that TD's should not have what you call 'Extra Insurance' against the normal probationary performance assessment. .

Liam Byrne wrote:

And since when have you ever heard of a "permanent" job ? Even after probation, if you're not up to the job, you can still be demoted or let go. Even if you ARE up to the job, you can still be let go (just ask any former Dell employees).

I'm in a permanent job ?!?

It really isn't that easy to let somebody go (or demote them) from a permanent position y'know. . and the DELL employees could only be let go because no-one in this jurisdiction was replacing them. Apply those rules to your TD's and you will have an empty chamber

Liam Byrne wrote:

But we do need accountability and value for money. The very fact that they can still claim unvouched expenses to the tune of a minimum-wage, part-time salary - unvouched - is indicative of the level of willingness for actual reform.

Agreed but its a damn sight better than we had this time last week (thanks to FF!), and this exists right across the political spectrum by the way (not just in DE, and not limited to any political party) ? . . . but seriously, whats that got to do with making them 'clock in and out' to work ? ? we can have better expenses reform without putting all of our politicians 'on the clock' ..

And no-one answered my earlier Q .. . most 'on-the clock' employees get paid overtime .. will you be paying our TD's a premium when they are in DE for the late-night votes ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yeah you did . . you implied pretty clearly that TD's should not have what you call 'Extra Insurance' against the normal probationary performance assessment. .

That does not translate into "a yearly vote", so your "once a year" comment comes across as an attempt to just cast doubt on a perfectly valid and informed point.

Also, my point was to outline what exists in real life; I never said that I wanted the above - I am merely pointing out that the fiction about "the poor TDs" being under scrutiny does not warrant them being paid more.

As I said, if they're good they'll be kept on.

If not, they won't.

As for your comment re Dell....can I ask you to expand on this ? What does

and the DELL employees could only be let go because no-one in this jurisdiction was replacing them.

mean, exactly ?

If you're not up to a job, you can be let go, and someone else is hired in your place. It happens all the time.

anymore

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yeah you did . . you implied pretty clearly that TD's should not have what you call 'Extra Insurance' against the normal probationary performance assessment. .



I'm in a permanent job ?!?

It really isn't that easy to let somebody go (or demote them) from a permanent position y'know. . and the DELL employees could only be let go because no-one in this jurisdiction was replacing them. Apply those rules to your TD's and you will have an empty chamber



Agreed but its a damn sight better than we had this time last week (thanks to FF!), and this exists right across the political spectrum by the way (not just in DE, and not limited to any political party) ? . . . but seriously, whats that got to do with making them 'clock in and out' to work ? ? we can have better expenses reform without putting all of our politicians 'on the clock' ..

And no-one answered my earlier Q .. . most 'on-the clock' employees get paid overtime .. will you be paying our TD's a premium when they are in DE for the late-night votes ?

They can simply work in Dail say 11.
00 to 3.30 for 40 weeks of the year leaving time for consituency work and then they are free to do as they please.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That does not translate into "a yearly vote", so your "once a year" comment comes across as an attempt to just cast doubt on a perfectly valid and informed point.

So what is your point . . you said that TD's should not have the 'extra insurance' that not having probation brings . . do you propose some sort of probationary system or are you just making an irrelevant comparison for the sake of it ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

Also, my point was to outline what exists in real life; I never said that I wanted the above - I am merely pointing out that the fiction about "the poor TDs" being under scrutiny does not warrant them being paid more.

Who said they ought to be paid more ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

As I said, if they're good they'll be kept on.

If not, they won't.

That's what I said ? ? ? So why do you want them to clock in and out in order to get paid ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

As for your comment re Dell....can I ask you to expand on this ? What does



mean, exactly ?

.

Sure . . essentially there are two ways to get rid of permanent employees in Ireland. One is to make the positions redundant. The position becomes redundant, you no longer need the people hence they lose their jobs. . even then it isn't that easy. . You have made the position redundant so you cannot replace them; you have to demonstrate that you have used a fair mechanism to select the people you are letting go and you have to give them an opportunity to move into other positions for which they may be qualified and suitable.

The second mechanism is to fire them based on performance. This really isn't easy in todays environment. Their job description has to be super clear, you have to be able to demonstrate that they failed to deliver to an appropriate standard and you have to give them an opportunity to improve. . . Quite often the employee will complicate matters by claiming they have been unfairly treated / bullied etc . .

Your comment that

it happens all the time

is not true . . What more often happens is that employees are 'incentivised' to resign . .

Overheal

Slow News Day?

I would think as a Politician your job requires you to be in and out of your office all day. We have 3 employees and have to leave the office about a dozen times a day to get to our customers: Should we have to clock out to do that?

There are better ways to measure TD performance than a Timecard. Look at the Minutes of Dail Meetings and such: See who attended what; proposed which legislation; etc.

goat2

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Did they? Got a link?

come the next gen elect, they will not have to clock out
they will be ejected

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

So what is your point . . you said that TD's should not have the 'extra insurance' that not having probation brings . . do you propose some sort of probationary system or are you just making an irrelevant comparison for the sake of it ?

Firstly, please avoid once again being so dismissive and claiming that the point is "irrelevant".

My point is this; you said that the poor politicians could be fired (based on their performance) after 5 years and so need a cushion.

My point is that a normal person could be fired (based on their performance) after 1 year and yet does not have a cushion.

Why do you defend one and not only overlook the other ? And why do you do your utmost to incorrectly dismiss it as "irrelevant" ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Who said they ought to be paid more ?

"More" than a non-TD job sector. :rolleyes: Pensions after a few years as a minister, massive expenses for actually turning up at a place of work.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

you have to give them an opportunity to move into other positions for which they may be qualified and suitable.

Do you have a link to proof of this ? What happens if there is no other empty position for which they may be qualified and suitable ? Does someone who is hired as a doorman have to be given an opportunity to be a barman if they don't work out as the doorman ? I doubt it, but I'm open to being shown proof.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Their job description has to be super clear, you have to be able to demonstrate that they failed to deliver to an appropriate standard and you have to give them an opportunity to improve. . .Quite often the employee will complicate matters by claiming they have been unfairly treated / bullied etc . .

The second part is an irrelevant red herring; employees could claim that at any stage.

So you're telling me that NewsTalk couldn't bring George Hook into a meeting and say "You're only drawing in 10,000 listeners, so we're giving someone else your slot" ?

How much of a f**k up would they have to make in order to be fired ?

Would you not agree that someone who had cost a company €17,000,000 on obsolete, useless electronic equipment would be fired on the spot ?

Not to mention someone breaking the law and bringing a company into disrepute.

I don't want to rehash all of the above arguments, because they're probably all on other threads, but the fact is that TDs already have a whole host of benefits that insulate them from what might be standard practice elsewhere.

BluePlanet

CFlower wrote: »

Nail on head.

I heard a TD on the radio two weeks ago saying that the clocking in would be no bother, as most TDs dropped in to pick up their mail and could sign in at the same time.
The RTE interviewer saw no harm in this.

This was always common practice with Dublin City Councillors too - nip in, sign book, nip out again.

Well. We vote for them.

But how are we supposed to know they are not in their places of work?
The public are not getting the information necessary to make an informed choice.
For that matter, how are the public to know that the system allows for this abuse?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, please avoid once again being so dismissive and claiming that the point is "irrelevant".

My point is this; you said that the poor politicians could be fired (based on their performance) after 5 years and so need a cushion.

Where did I say (or even imply) that they needed a cushion ? I don't think I did. . Just like I didn't say they needed to be paid more (as you also quoted) . .

Liam Byrne wrote:

My point is that a normal person could be fired (based on their performance) after 1 year and yet does not have a cushion.
Why do you defend one and not only overlook the other ? And why do you do your utmost to incorrectly dismiss it as "irrelevant" ?

You making this point but refuse to elaborate which is why I said it was irrelevant. Do you want to remove the cushion from TD's ? Do you want a probation system ? Do you recognise how unrealistic even the idea of this is ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

"More" than a non-TD job sector. :rolleyes: Pensions after a few years as a minister, massive expenses for actually turning up at a place of work.

You're loosing the run of yourself Liam . . When did I say they should be paid more than non-TD's ? . . When did I say they should get massive expenses ?


I believe that it is appropriate to pay ministerial pensions earlier than at age 65 because I believe that public service is a sacrifice that is short term and those people who give most in service to their country ought to be appropriately rewarded.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Do you have a link to proof of this ? What happens if there is no other empty position for which they may be qualified and suitable ? Does someone who is hired as a doorman have to be given an opportunity to be a barman if they don't work out as the doorman ? I doubt it, but I'm open to being shown proof.

No I don't but I have plenty of personal experience in this field that I can refer to . .

If there is no other position then they are made redundant as I described . .

. . and your comparison is not in line with what I described.

If someone is in a permanent position as a doorman and you decide that you no longer need a doorman yet you have a vacant position as a barman and your doorman meets all the requirements of that position then you have to give him a fair crack at it.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The second part is an irrelevant red herring; employees could claim that at any stage.

So you're telling me that NewsTalk couldn't bring George Hook into a meeting and say "You're only drawing in 10,000 listeners, so we're giving someone else your slot" ?

I'm guessing Hook is either on a 1 year rolling contract or is self-employed. . If not then yes, it would be very difficult to get rid of him if his ratings dropped . .All RTE presenters are self employed for this reason. . and actually many senior executives in business move from permanent positions into better paid but temporary contract positions so that the company can remove them if needed.

sceptre

Most of the criticisms in this thread have nothing to do with a clockout system. Or, indeed, a clock-in system.

So I'm ignoring them as I know how to stay on topic.

WIth regard to a clockout system, bearing in mind Overheal's quite reasonable point that a politician is quite likely to be in and out of their office all day, I fail to see an advantage other than a Nelson Muntz-style "haha". And we've better things to be doing, organising or legislating for than Nelson Muntz-style "haha"s.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You're loosing the run of yourself Liam . . When did I say they should be paid more than non-TD's ? . . When did I say they should get massive expenses ?

I'm not losing any run of myself. They are paid their pensions while still in receipt of their salaries. That means that they are paid more than non-TDs. And significantly more if they only had the job for a year or two (a la John Gormley at the moment).

A pension for life based on two years of slightly tougher (and already better-paid in its own right) job ?

Do you really think that's fair and right ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I believe that it is appropriate to pay ministerial pensions earlier than at age 65 because I believe that public service is a sacrifice that is short term and those people who give most in service to their country ought to be appropriately rewarded.

And - as I have clearly pointed out - this is by no means a "sacrifice" :rolleyes:

They put themselves in the running for a job, get it, and if they're good at it they get paid well, and keep their job.

That is by no means a "sacrifice". They chose it. If they don't want to do it, then don't choose it. And don't expect to get paid on the double (or treble, if you're a former teacher and a former minister).

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If someone is in a permanent position as a doorman and you decide that you no longer need a doorman yet you have a vacant position as a barman and your doorman meets all the requirements of that position then you have to give him a fair crack at it.

You "have to" ? Is that from your experience, or is it legislation ?

Because I have never, ever heard of this being done.

Also, logic would dictate that someone else might be more experienced or be more suited, and your earlier argument was that they get paid a lot to attract - supposedly - the best people for the job.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not losing any run of myself. They are paid their pensions while still in receipt of their salaries. That means that they are paid more than non-TDs. And significantly more if they only had the job for a year or two (a la John Gormley at the moment).

A pension for life based on two years of slightly tougher (and already better-paid in its own right) job ?

Do you really think that's fair and right ?

Well, what you said was that I said they should be paid more and they should have a cushion but hey, we are far enough off-topic here. .


Yes, I think that is fair and right.

Liam Byrne wrote:

You "have to" ? Is that from your experience, or is it legislation ?

It is my experience and yes I have seen it being done . .


You've not answered my question re: probation, do you want it or don't you ?

jmayo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Someone from the Dáil sent me an official-looking letter complete with the harp during the run-up to Lisbon 2......
......turns out it was an ad for a local FF election councillor.

Name and shame for misuse of resources and wastage.

zootroid wrote: »

During the week we received a letter in a Dail Eireann envelope, from a local Fianna Fail councillor whose father is a Fianna Fail TD. But this is the first instance I've seen it happen. And I presume they're all at it.

Name and shame for misuse of resources and wastage.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Who committed the criminal act ?

(And before you answer you ought to remember that all Irish citizens have a right to the presumption of innocence :0) and that the minister you are likely talking about has not been charged or convicted of a crime and in fact if you are talking about perjury probably never committed any crime . . He was forced out of office because he made foolish mistakes and the government partners lost confidence in him, not because he committed a crime)

Excuse me it wasn't just foolish mistakes as you imply and gloss over the seriousness of what transpired.
Said ex minister slandered a fellow politican in the run up to an election and could face charges under an electoral act.
He then proceeded to gave a sworn affidavit to the high court with a false statement which had major bearing on deciding whether an injunction was granted to the plaintiff who was the subject of firstly slander and secondly libel.

Stop resorting to the usual ff line of nothing was proven or he was never found guilty of anything.
If his little mistakes were carried out by non connected ordinary citizens they would have been charged with misleading the court.

BTW speaking of ones who were actualyl found guilty of criminal activity, does ray burke get his multiple pensions ?

On topic I don't think we can have clocking in and out for TDs.
It is a stupid argument.
The bigger measure of TDs would be their expense claims, the amount of legislation they contribute towards, the amount of committee work they are involved in and the amount of Dáil debates they contribute towards.
Note heckling and acting the smary maggot like dermot ahern would not count towards this time.:rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Well, what you said was that I said they should be paid more and they should have a cushion but hey, we are far enough off-topic here. .

You said that you think it's OK that they get a "pension" while still working.

That is certainly being paid more than any other sector.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, I think that is fair and right.

I cannot for the life of me see how. 18 months, moved on because they're not up to the job, and a pension for life - including their next stint as a standard TD where they're being paid for that too.

Absolutely crazy in a country that doesn't have money.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You've not answered my question re: probation, do you want it or don't you ?

That is a complete red herring. I mentioned probation merely to prove to you that the "could be out after 5 years" is actually a BETTER position than a lot of private sector people.

Are there some TDs that I would have liked to see out on their ear before the 5 years is up ?

Absolutely. The current crowd being a perfect example.

But it wasn't a proposal of mine; it was an attempt to show you that 5 years in a cushy, very-well-paid job from which you can't - apparently - be fired (no matter what you get up to or how incompetent you are) is not a chore by any means, and does not justify "insurance" pay for added risk - there's actually less risk.

sceptre

Apparently hints aren't good enough.

The topic of discussion is the introduction of a clock-in system to Dail Eireann but no clock-out system.

Please stay on or near the topic or I'll lock the thread and/or distribute penalities to those who can't. Your call.

/mod

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But it wasn't a proposal of mine; it was an attempt to show you that 5 years in a cushy, very-well-paid job from which you can't - apparently - be fired (no matter what you get up to or how incompetent you are) is not a chore by any means, and does not justify "insurance" pay for added risk - there's actually less risk.

OK . .

And BTW, the answer to your question is nowhere; in most jobs you don't have 4 years extra to get it right; if you're crap, you're out asap within the probation period.

On the other hand, if you're good enough you're kept on.

Nothing wrong with that, and no reason why TDs should have extra insurance against being crap.

sounds to me like a proposal . .

but let me try to get back on topic. . You want treat TD's like industrial payed-by-the-hour workers and while this may be very populist with that constituency, it simply isn't realistic and will offer nothing . . . What will we get if we implement a full clock-in, clock-out system . . . lots of meaningless data released under FOI that has very little bearing on how good or bad useful or useless our TD's are . . . Apart from anything else we don't need the data, we get to judge our politicians on their usefulness once every 5 years !

What we do need is vouched expenses. This (i.e. confirming that they have travelled to Dublin before paying them the allowance they get to travel to Dublin) is a very good first step.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What will we get if we implement a full clock-in, clock-out system . . . lots of meaningless data released under FOI that has very little bearing on how good or bad useful or useless our TD's are

On this I agree 100%. Someone decent could get stuff done in half the time, while someone else could spend their day on the floor of the house making catty remarks.

So yes, it's not a measure of performance by any means.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What we do need is vouched expenses. This (i.e. confirming that they have travelled to Dublin before paying them the allowance they get to travel to Dublin) is a very good first step.

Not really. How did they get there ? Did they drive up ? Take a train ? Car pool (with both getting expenses) ? Were they up there anyways ?

This clock-in mechanism is a scheme by which to be "seen to" be doing something, rather than actually doing it.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

On this I agree 100%. Someone decent could get stuff done in half the time, while someone else could spend their day on the floor of the house making catty remarks.

So yes, it's not a measure of performance by any means.

Not really. How did they get there ? Did they drive up ? Take a train ? Car pool (with both getting expenses) ? Were they up there anyways ?

This clock-in mechanism is a scheme by which to be "seen to" be doing something, rather than actually doing it.

So, with both of these arguments in mind . . recognising that a) its not a measure of performance and b) the fact that they are in Dublin is not a reflection on the cost of their travel . . . . .

. . . . why do you want them to have to clock out ? ? ?

Biggins

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Surely this is still rife with potential for abuse ?

OK, so they have to go to Dublin, but there's still nothing to stop them fecking off for the day to the nearest race meeting or soccer match - or even calling in for 5 mins before flying somewhere from Dublin Airport.

Why wasn't a proper system put in ?

Thanks for point this out. For two years now FF and co have tried every trick in the book with excuses to keep a clocking in system away from the Dail building. For near two years now, I have been mentioning this issue time and time again alone.
It seems a lacklustre useless compromise is now being used.
Why is the opposition not giving out about it? Thats easy - because the new just as useless system suits them too down to the ground.

Taking this new system into account with the requirements to qualify for the new regulations for expenses - there is a whole new ball game invented as to how to get around financial limits and much revered (according too FF anyway) guidelines that were trumpeted to the mass media by FF in soundbites.

Its a joke, FF knows it a joke, the opposition knows its a joke (but its suits them!)
- so for every winner (them), there is a loser - thats you, me and your children that will be effected the next time money can't be found to keep a childs ward open.

One again, think of this system when you hear of a new tax, new way to raise money for Dublin, pay for the next junket and €100,000 leaving office bonus.

Nice government we have, Don't forget to vote FF/Greens next time. :rolleyes: