Privatisation! whats the point?

zing zong

was reading in the Irish Times today about the speed cameras being rolled out which will be run by a private company.

and that Cork Council have handed over the refuse service to a private company, stating it would save money.

granted these are only two instances out of many, but what I want to know is what is the point?

both local and national government are supposed to provide services that would be of best value to the tax payer. when the state provides a service, it has to cover the running costs, and pay the workers wages. when a private company provides a service, it has to cover the very same costs and make a profit on top of that, which the tax payer must now pay for.

so how in the hell is this of any benefit to tax payers?

mgmt

LOL Karl Marx 101

Iwasfrozen

zing zong wrote: »

was reading in the Irish Times today about the speed cameras being rolled out which will be run by a private company.

and that Cork Council have handed over the refuse service to a private company, stating it would save money.

granted these are only two instances out of many, but what I want to know is what is the point?

both local and national government are supposed to provide services that would be of best value to the tax payer. when the state provides a service, it has to cover the running costs, and pay the workers wages. when a private company provides a service, it has to cover the very same costs and make a profit on top of that, which the tax payer must now pay for.

so how in the hell is this of any benefit to tax payers?

Private companies are more likely to tell unions where to go.

Bumder

It would work out cheaper because if the state was running it, it would be overstaffed, have over paid workers, only work for about 4 months a year and most likely have second to none remuneration and pension entitlements.

wiseguy

zing zong wrote: »

so how in the hell is this of any benefit to tax payers?

Private companies have an incentive to do their job and can be held responsible

Government and state controlled bureaucracies don't as illustrated by our incompetent system with no heads rolling

Choose your evil

deise go deo

Private enterprise tends to be more efficent than state run services, I doubt the tax payer will lose out in these cases.

Max Power1

zing zong wrote: »

was reading in the Irish Times today about the speed cameras being rolled out which will be run by a private company.

and that Cork Council have handed over the refuse service to a private company, stating it would save money.

granted these are only two instances out of many, but what I want to know is what is the point?

both local and national government are supposed to provide services that would be of best value to the tax payer. when the state provides a service, it has to cover the running costs, and pay the workers wages. when a private company provides a service, it has to cover the very same costs and make a profit on top of that, which the tax payer must now pay for.

so how in the hell is this of any benefit to tax payers?

No unions, no ridiculously high PS salaries would help!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

monkeypants

The difference would be in the wages paid to the regular workers collecting the rubbish.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They do in their holes.

But I think the actual point here is that do 'cost savings', which happen when you replace public workers with minimum wagers, accruing short term mean an improvement in service provision from the private sphere.

And experience in Ireland and the UK is most certainly no.

Its another one of these ideoligical pipe dreams that doesn't work in reality.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

They do in their holes.

But I think the actual point here is that do 'cost savings', which happen when you replace public workers with minimum wagers, accruing short term mean an improvement in service provision from the private sphere.

And experience in Ireland and the UK is most certainly no.

Its another one of these ideoligical pipe dreams that doesn't work in reality.

Wrong and ridiculous.

Using Eircom and British Rail as examples of "failed privitisation" have been around for years. It doesnt make the claim correct. Private operators in the UK have turned the London Bus service into the envy of the world. It is a prime example of how sensible privitisation can enhance public services, and ensure that all paties who wish to enter the market are entitled to compete. If they fail to compete, they fail altogether.

I would like to point out that South Dublin County Council has a monopoly on waste management. For the first three weeks of August, I was left without my refuse being collected. If I could have switched my service to Panda, both my neighbours and I would have been able to prevent our neighbourhood resembling Calcutta. Unfortunatly, that is not an option. Equally, thanks to CIE being a public company, with a bolshy Union at their backs, integrated ticketing will hardly become a reality as they pathetically fight over which service will get the highest percentage of the profits. Public services provided only by taxpayer money, and are not open to competition ARE BAD. They are rationalised, and they are not benchmarked.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Wrong and ridiculous.

Using Eircom and British Rail as examples of "failed privitisation" have been around for years. It doesnt make the claim correct. Private operators in the UK have turned the London Bus service into the envy of the world. It is a prime example of how sensible privitisation can enhance public services, and ensure that all paties who wish to enter the market are entitled to compete. If they fail to compete, they fail altogether.

I would like to point out that South Dublin County Council has a monopoly on waste management. For the first three weeks of August, I was left without my refuse being collected. If I could have switched my service to Panda, both my neighbours and I would have been able to prevent our neighbourhood resembling Calcutta. Unfortunatly, that is not an option. Equally, thanks to CIE being a public company, with a bolshy Union at their backs, integrated ticketing will hardly become a reality as they pathetically fight over which service will get the highest percentage of the profits. Public services provided only by taxpayer money, and are not open to competition ARE BAD. They are rationalised, and they are not benchmarked.

You can't just dismiss eircom like that. They took a functioning public entity, sold it, and it became a non-functioning private entity and now our broadband provision is the worst in the OECD. That privatisation was an unmitigated failure.

How exactly would public transport in Ireland be improved by selling CIE? Name me one thing in Ireland that has been successfully privatised?

These little soundbites the right like to roll off have no actual bearing on reality.

zing zong

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You can't just dismiss eircom like that. They took a functioning public entity, sold it, and it became a non-functioning private entity and now our broadband provision is the worst in the OECD. That privatisation was an unmitigated failure.

excellent point

zing zong

the jist of what most posters are saying is that if a service were privatised, it would work out cheaper because the workers are paid less, get less benefits etc.

but why are the government obliged, if they are, to pay more or give better benefits than private companies, surely they could employ people with contracts on par with private companies for doing the same work and providing the same service?? all the while not having to make a profit, and to just cover costs

OhNoYouDidn't

zing zong wrote: »

the jist of what most posters are saying is that if a service were privatised, it would work out cheaper because the workers are paid less, get less benefits etc.

but why are the government obliged, if they are, to pay more or give better benefits than private companies, surely they could employ people with contracts on par with private companies for doing the same work and providing the same service?? all the while not having to make a profit, and to just cover costs

Are you seriously arguing that the Government should join the race to the bottom and pay public sector staff minimum wage?

The jist of what I am saying is cheaper is rarely better, and I would prefer to pay a bit more for a service that works than have a functioning service hived off and run on exploitative lines privately just to save a small amount of money and appease a failed ideology.

deise go deo

zing zong wrote: »

the jist of what most posters are saying is that if a service were privatised, it would work out cheaper because the workers are paid less, get less benefits etc.

but why are the government obliged, if they are, to pay more or give better benefits than private companies, surely they could employ people with contracts on par with private companies for doing the same work and providing the same service?? all the while not having to make a profit, and to just cover costs

Because their hands are tied by the public service unions who would go on strike if they tried to.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You can't just dismiss eircom like that. They took a functioning public entity, sold it, and it became a non-functioning private entity and now our broadband provision is the worst in the OECD. That privatisation was an unmitigated failure.

How exactly would public transport in Ireland be improved by selling CIE? Name me one thing in Ireland that has been successfully privatised?

These little soundbites the right like to roll off have no actual bearing on reality.

The privitisation of Eircom has been a failure, to a certain extent. The fact that companies like Sky, and UPC have entered the market is a godsend. UPC provide stronger broadband then eircom ever could, and would have if it was a state run company. Companies like Vodafone have also proved to be profitable, and enjoy a large customer base thanks to the opening up of the market in 1999. Thank God for the sale of Eircell, it suits me and thousands of others down to the ground. I remain with eircom for my landline services, and the service they provide is fine. But at least I am not shelling out money on the provision of telecom services, which I can get from another operator of my choice.

The failure has come in that Eircom has been outstripped by several of it's competitors in the provision of mobile services, and broadband. But that is a dubious failure. No private company is entitled to be the most successful company of them all. In fact, it would suggest that the market has divded the wheat from the chaff. This is an answer to your second question. The free market has prevailed, and eircom are not capable of keeping up. Simple as that. The fact that shares are worthless doesnt mean squat to me, and those who have sold them, or never had them.

How would it improve public transport ? Well first off, bus men would not be entitled to ignore bus stops at will. Second, it would increase the number of public transport outlets on the busiest of routes. Third, it would increase the care the operator takes for it's vehicles. This would be beneficial to all passangers, as they would be aware of which operator is the one who pays most attention to their needs/ I dont mind a small subsidy for unprofitable routes. But the profitable routs should be available for private operatiors to ensure that rationalisation doesnt occur, and that by virtue of the monopoly, the employee can pick and choose how he wishes to run his service.

Ok, fine. Just ignore emperical evidence of what rationalised services have done. Call them soudbytes if you will. But your prejudices about Eircom are far more of a populist soundbyte, which is proffered by the lay-about lefties who are anxious to get this race to the bottom going.

OhNoYouDidn't

deise go deo wrote: »

Because their hands are tied by the public service unions who would go on strike if they tried to.

That and the fact that most people in the provision of public services are degree educated experts in their fields and its laughable to expect them to work for minimum wage.

Ring the tax office. Ring UPC. Then come back on here and tell us which conversation was cheap and nasty....

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

The privitisation of Eircom has been a failure, to a certain extent. The fact that companies like Sky, and UPC have entered the market is a godsend. UPC provide stronger broadband then eircom ever could, and would have if it was a state run company. Companies like Vodafone have also proved to be profitable, and enjoy a large customer base thanks to the opening up of the market in 1999. Thank God for the sale of Eircell, it suits me and thousands of others down to the ground. I remain with eircom for my landline services, and the service they provide is fine. But at least I am not shelling out money on the provision of telecom services, which I can get from another operator of my choice.

The failure has come in that Eircom has been outstripped by several of it's competitors in the provision of mobile services, and broadband. But that is a dubious failure. No private company is entitled to be the most successful company of them all. In fact, it would suggest that the market has divded the wheat from the chaff. This is an answer to your second question. The free market has prevailed, and eircom are not capable of keeping up. Simple as that. The fact that shares are worthless doesnt mean squat to me, and those who have sold them, or never had them.

The bit you are ignoring is that an ideological decision was taken to prohibit eircom from competing (remember the digicell debacle...) and then they were sold off and asset stripped.

It worked, businessmen friends of FF got involved, it is now a failure. You cannot ignore that link.

Het-Field wrote: »

How would it improve public transport ? Well first off, bus men would not be entitled to ignore bus stops at will. Second, it would increase the number of public transport outlets on the busiest of routes. Third, it would increase the care the operator takes for it's vehicles. This would be beneficial to all passangers, as they would be aware of which operator is the one who pays most attention to their needs/ I dont mind a small subsidy for unprofitable routes. But the profitable routs should be available for private operatiors to ensure that rationalisation doesnt occur, and that by virtue of the monopoly, the employee can pick and choose how he wishes to run his service..

thats not what I asked. There are a raft of private bus operators, some good, some bad. I asked HOW SELLING CIE would improve the public transport network.

Het-Field wrote: »

Ok, fine. Just ignore emperical evidence of what rationalised services have done. Call them soudbytes if you will. But your prejudices about Eircom are far more of a populist soundbyte, which is proffered by the lay-about lefties who are anxious to get this race to the bottom going.

What empirical evidence? You haven't provided any for me to ignore...

And accusing me of a race to the bottom!?!

mgmt

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That and the fact that most people in the provision of public services are degree educated experts in their fields and its laughable to expect them to work for minimum wage.

Ring the tax office. Ring UPC. Then come back on here and tell us which conversation was cheap and nasty....

What degree does the civil servant who answers your phone in the tax office have?

kmick

Eircom.
In 1993 when we moved home Eircom promised to provide us with a functioning phone line in 9-11 months.
So lets put to bed once and for all the idea that eircom before privatisation was some sort of "super functional" company.

It was never a good company. Which is why I bought and sold my shares in it inside two weeks.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The bit you are ignoring is that an ideological decision was taken to prohibit eircom from competing (remember the digicell debacle...) and then they were sold off and asset stripped.

It worked, businessmen friends of FF got involved, it is now a failure. You cannot ignore that link.



thats not what I asked. There are a raft of private bus operators, some good, some bad. I asked HOW SELLING CIE would improve the public transport network.



What empirical evidence? You haven't provided any for me to ignore...

And accusing me of a race to the bottom!?!

So what ? TE was costing the taxpayer too much, and it was far too expensive. And as the poster above has mentioned, it was not a bastion of commercial effectiveness.At least Irish people can choose who they wish to use, and eircom are not allowed price fix, and must compete within the market (on telephone call charges at least), rather then be the market.

Ok. How would selling CIE Improve the service ? Well, first our public transport system would no longer be at the whim of a regressive Union, which os only interested in artifically inflating public wages.

Emperical evidence, well if you want to ask any of my neighbours who suffered for three weeks without their bins being collected by the sole operator (state run of course) then you will get some. Equally, just wait around any bus stop, and wait for a virtually empty bus to pass by (blatant waste of taxpayers money), or wait at a busy bus stop, and watch the bus driver ignore the waiting passangers, as he wants to finish his shift early.

Yes, it is a race to the bottom. Artifically inflating public wages is a NEGATIVE. Im aware that comrades like yourself are happy to have the ordinary Joe Soap stick his hand into his pockets to pay for wanton waste, but I certainly am not.

zing zong

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are you seriously arguing that the Government should join the race to the bottom and pay public sector staff minimum wage?

not at all

most posters are saying that the privatised services are better because they pay less, give less benefits (i don't agree with this, but i understand their point)

in the example of the refuse service, the people that did work for the council, will more than likely go on to work in the newly privatised service,

so my point is, if the only reason that the service is being privatised is to save the taxpayer money (which is a farce, since after the service is privatised you now have to pay for the service YET your tax hasn't gone down) why not pay on par with the private sector? this would seem the most logical to me

BTW im not talking sweeping wage reductions across the board in the public sector, but in some areas i dont see why the pay should be any more or less than the private sector for the same work, would this stop the state selling everything off?

wiseguy

zing zong wrote: »

the jist of what most posters are saying is that if a service were privatised, it would work out cheaper because the workers are paid less, get less benefits etc.

but why are the government obliged, if they are, to pay more or give better benefits than private companies, surely they could employ people with contracts on par with private companies for doing the same work and providing the same service?? all the while not having to make a profit, and to just cover costs

Which part of "the Government is not capable of organizing a piss-up at a brewery" you have such a difficulty understanding

mgmt

YOUR tax money is going to pay for over inflated wages and inefficient services that could be better provided by the private industry. Why does our government have to be in the train, bus, airline, electricity, water, refuse, greyhound industries (bord na gcon) etc. All are mature enough to be fully in private hands.

OhNoYouDidn't

wiseguy wrote: »

Which part of "the Government is not capable of organizing a piss-up at a brewery" you have such a difficulty understanding

As opposed to the Irish commercial sector who are the best in the world? :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

mgmt wrote: »

YOUR tax money is going to pay for over inflated wages and inefficient services that could be better provided by the private industry. Why does our government have to be in the train, bus, airline, electricity, water, refuse, greyhound industries (bord na gcon) etc. All are mature enough to be fully in private hands.

Name me one successful privatisation in Ireland so far that would justify the strategic risk of selling these assets?

As for 'inefficient services', are you trying to tell me that there aren't piss poor private providers out there?

By all means, allow competition, but selling working state assets for the sake of it? No thanks

This deregulate everything economic phase has been and gone. It was a disaster. Some ideologues simply haven't copped onto this yet.

kmick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As opposed to the Irish commercial sector who are the best in the world? :rolleyes:

Commercial is better at getting value for money. End of story. More value = more profit. Anyone who has ever dealt with the government as a supplier of services will know that they dont demand value for money.

wiseguy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As opposed to the Irish commercial sector who are the best in the world? :rolleyes:

Whats wrong with the Irish commercial sector? maybe we should nationalize all companies and embrace our new socialist paradise on the Atlantic :rolleyes:
Hows that working out for Cuba?

zing zong

mgmt wrote: »

YOUR tax money is going to pay for over inflated wages and inefficient services that could be better provided by the private industry. Why does our government have to be in the train, bus, airline, electricity, water, refuse, greyhound industries (bord na gcon) etc. All are mature enough to be fully in private hands.

whatever about greyhound industries, and airlines and all the rest of the rubbish the state (now, not before) has no business being in, there are certain services, vital services, that should never be private, e.g. water, roads, prisons, education, health etc

wiseguy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Name me one successful privatisation in Ireland so far that would justify the strategic risk of selling these assets?

As for 'inefficient services', are you trying to tell me that there aren't piss poor private providers out there?

By all means, allow competition, but selling working state assets for the sake of it? No thanks

This deregulate everything economic phase has been and gone. It was a disaster. Some ideologues simply haven't copped onto this yet.

Its funny to note that Eircom privatization was botched by unions and Labour lobbying