O'Leary hits out at Cowen's state agency summit

Lenny Lovett

Is Michael O'Leary the only one talking sense in this country?

Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary has today branded the bosses of state agencies 'headless chickens' who "have never created a job in their lives".
He was reacting to the meeting called by the Taoiseach yesterday, aimed at focusing the Government's mind on job creation.
"I would have fired them all," said O'Leary. "These are not the job creators".

He hit the nail very firmly on the head there!

P. Breathnach

You should have curtailed your header to "O'Leary hits out". That's his stock in trade, and he relishes the cheap publicity.

Lenny Lovett

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You should have curtailed your header to "O'Leary hits out". That's his stock in trade, and he relishes the cheap publicity.

Well having had dealings with Enterprise Ireland, I agree with him 200%! They're an impediment to job creation.

Sizzler

Yes he is a PR machine BUT you will find he is fairly reasoned when it comes to lavishing praise on the gombeens in power, nothing he said above I would disagree with.

For anybody who has dealt with the likes of the IDA or Enterprise Ireland they will know exactly what I mean!

Sand

The public sector and trade unionists despise O'Leary about as much as they despise efficiency and value for money.

imme

Sand wrote: »

The public sector and trade unionists despise O'Leary about as much as they despise efficiency and value for money.

that's a very sweeping statement.:rolleyes:

kippy

Is this the same Michael O Leary who has put Charlie McCreevy on the board of Ryanair?

imme

O'Leary said the heads of the agencies are not job creators, that is simply not true.
The groups at the summit were: the IDA; Enterprise Ireland; Forfás; Fás; Bord Bia; Fáilte Ireland; Tourism Ireland; Science Foundation Ireland; the Sustainable Energy Authority; the Higher Education Authority and the City and County Managers Association.

IDA supported companies created 4,610 jobs in 2009. Of course the IDA does not employ these people itself, it facilitates job creation. All the others have created jobs. The City & County Managers Assn. I guess was included as they can facilitate job creation.

P. Breathnach

imme wrote: »

that's a very sweeping statement.:rolleyes:

Rather like most of what O'Leary offers in his contributions to public discourse.

Sand

that's a very sweeping statement.

But a true one.

aidan24326

Sand wrote: »

But a true one.

Exactly.

@imme - Sometimes a sweeping statement can actually have alot of truth. You only have to think of the mind-boggling waste that public sector bodies have been guilty of in recent years. Hundreds of millions were squandered on projects that were either royally messed up or that never materialised at all, or that ran disgracefully over budget. That's before we even get to the culture of lavish expenses and bonuses.

imme

aidan24326 wrote: »

Exactly.

@imme - Sometimes a sweeping statement can actually have alot of truth. You only have to think of the mind-boggling waste that public sector bodies have been guilty of in recent years. Hundreds of millions were squandered on projects that were either royally messed up or that never materialised at all, or that ran disgracefully over budget. That's before we even get to the culture of lavish expenses and bonuses.

Sand said:
"The public sector and trade unionists despise O'Leary about as much as they despise efficiency and value for money."

yet he didn't go into any detail, proved any back up, I accused him of making a sweeping statement. Do you think I'm wrong. A poster says that the public sector and trade unions (as if they were one and the same :rolleyes:) despise efficiency and value for money, as if it were a given. I say it's not a given and that sweeping statements without a reason or backup are useless. Maybe you're happy with that. I'm not.

Then you come back with a vague post that doesn't add anything other than vague accusations and allegations.

imme

Sand wrote: »

But a true one.

go on, why so? because you say so:rolleyes:
*yawns*

aidan24326

imme wrote: »

Then you come back with a vague post that doesn't add anything other than vague accusations and allegations.

Vague allegations? :rolleyes:

Look, do we really need to go into details of how money has been wasted by government departments and state agencies in recent years? It's common knowledge at this stage. Sand implied that the public sector has been inefficient and not gotten for value for money (alot of the time). I agreed. You obviously haven't heard of PPARS, the Bertie Bowl, Decentralisation, e-Voting machines, the massive Luas budget overrun, the countless millions wasted on various consultant's reports, the tribunals, FAS, civil service overstaffing, endless quangos, the M50 toll bridge fiasco. Is that enough examples of inefficiency and lack of value for money or should I go on?

I agree though that he shouldn't have lumped the Trade Unions into it as they're a separate issue.

imme

aidan24326 wrote: »

Vague allegations? :rolleyes:

Look, do we really need to go into details of how money has been wasted by government departments and state agencies in recent years? It's common knowledge at this stage. Sand implied that the public sector has been inefficient and not gotten for value for money (alot of the time). I agreed. You obviously haven't heard of PPARS, the Bertie Bowl, Decentralisation, e-Voting machines, the massive Luas budget overrun, the countless millions wasted on various consultant's reports, the tribunals, FAS, civil service overstaffing, endless quangos, the M50 toll bridge fiasco. Is that enough examples of inefficiency and lack of value for money or should I go on?

I agree though that he shouldn't have lumped the Trade Unions into it as they're a separate issue.

Sand said:
"The public sector and trade unionists despise O'Leary about as much as they despise efficiency and value for money."

Look, you agreed with the post initally, now you seem to be pulling back from that agreement. It was a cheap shot when I saw it, that's how I called it.

The Trade Unions and the Public Service are two separate entities, you seem to understand, others don't maybe they're being silly.

The projects you speak of were not the brainchildren of the Public Service or the Trade Unions. The Bertie Bowl, well the name speaks for itself;). E-voting has to go to Dempsey and Cullen. Decentralisation to McCreevy, Quangos go to the minister that established them. The Tribunals???
The M50 bridge??? where are you going with these.

PPARS was actually a project which was very badly managed by the Civil Service. They seem to have overpaid for not very good consultants to give them reports which were useless. The project was actually established to create efficiencies.

jimmycrackcorm

Mol makes some good points but the impact is diminished when he is asked about refunding taxes to people who don't travel.

chelseavera

kippy wrote: »

Is this the same Michael O Leary who has put Charlie McCreevy on the board of Ryanair?

Well done..... double standards!

fricatus

aidan24326 wrote: »

Look, do we really need to go into details of how money has been wasted by government departments and state agencies in recent years? It's common knowledge at this stage. Sand implied that the public sector has been inefficient and not gotten for value for money (alot of the time). I agreed. You obviously haven't heard of PPARS, the Bertie Bowl, Decentralisation, e-Voting machines, the massive Luas budget overrun, the countless millions wasted on various consultant's reports, the tribunals, FAS, civil service overstaffing, endless quangos, the M50 toll bridge fiasco. Is that enough examples of inefficiency and lack of value for money or should I go on?

I used to hate O'Leary when all I knew of him was his loudmouth publicity-seeking outbursts on TV and radio, and those silly newspaper ads. However, I read Siobhán Creaton's Ryanair book and a book by Paul Kilduff (I think) called the Little Book of Mick, which was a collection of his quotes. Once I knew a bit more about him, I found that my admiration for him increased.

One of the things that really impressed me was his relentless drive to cut costs. He would go through the accounts looking at what was costing the company money and then see how he could cut this expenditure out. One item was the reclining seats: they were costing a million or whatever per year to repair after getting broken, so for all their future aircraft orders, they told Boeing to fit seats that didn't recline.

Now, when you look at all the taxpayers' money that's been wasted over the years, wouldn't it be great to have someone with O'Leary's obsessive passion for cutting costs, only this time in government?

danbohan

imme wrote: »

that's a very sweeping statement.:rolleyes:

sweeping but true !, id rather have o leary in charge this country than any the bufoons in politics

doolox

It does not always follow that a publicly run enterprise will be more wasteful than a privately run one. If the structure allows for it the private sector are just as capable of wasting money as the public sector.

Trouble is that the public sector don't seem to be able to challenge accusations thrown at them as being consistently wasteful, while the private sector, being private and not having to publish all their details in public, can hide their mistakes from public view.

The public perception is that public jobs are "cushy", people laze around all day doing nothing or are slow. The trouble seems to be a lack of accountability for performance so that the workers who shirk are not brought to book as readily as in the private sector. This can be very demoralising for those who want to work and change things for the better while their colleagues obstruct change and delay progress.

The office of the comptroller general and the ombudsman are there to monitor public expenditure but we do not like to hear the bad news when it is reported.

Lenny Lovett

doolox wrote: »

It does not always follow that a publicly run enterprise will be more wasteful than a privately run one. If the structure allows for it the private sector are just as capable of wasting money as the public sector.

That's a rubbish argument. What difference does it make to anyone if a private company decides to piss it's own money down the drain. We aren't paying for it. When the Public Sector does it (again and again and again) we are paying for it. There's no comparison.

doolox wrote: »

Trouble is that the public sector don't seem to be able to challenge accusations thrown at them as being consistently wasteful, while the private sector, being private and not having to publish all their details in public, can hide their mistakes from public view.

1. The Public Sector are so arrogant and aloof that they just cant be arrsed answering for their fcuk ups. 2. Again, if a Private Sector company fcuks up who does it affect? It's shareholders. What happens if a Private Sector company fcuks up? The CEO or whoever is responsible get's fired. That doesn't happen in the Public Sector.

doolox wrote: »

The public perception is that public jobs are "cushy", people laze around all day doing nothing or are slow. The trouble seems to be a lack of accountability for performance so that the workers who shirk are not brought to book as readily as in the private sector. This can be very demoralising for those who want to work and change things for the better while their colleagues obstruct change and delay progress.

The office of the comptroller general and the ombudsman are there to monitor public expenditure but we do not like to hear the bad news when it is reported.

I don't believe it's perception. You just have to walk into any Public Service office and see the many people sitting around looking disinterested. They are generally dressed in a scruffy slovenely fashion. No cut of work about them. They deal with you like you're an annoyance to them rather than a customer (the very reason for their employment!!!!)Try getting any transaction done through a Public Service Department. It takes a ridiculously long time for any progress. Each individual in the Civil/Public Service should have the courage of their convictions and the balls to stand up and be counted and challenge waste and laziness not just go with the flow.

flutered

Look, do we really need to go into details of how money has been wasted by government departments and state agencies in recent years? It's common knowledge at this stage. Sand implied that the public sector has been inefficient and not gotten for value for money (alot of the time). I agreed. You obviously haven't heard of PPARS, the Bertie Bowl, Decentralisation, e-Voting machines, the massive Luas budget overrun, the countless millions wasted on various consultant's reports, the tribunals, FAS, civil service overstaffing, endless quangos, the M50 toll bridge fiasco. Is that enough examples of inefficiency and lack of value for money or should I go on?

all the above is true how many times has one been on a que to tax a car for example, the next time you are you will notice how one particular hatch goes through quite a number of people, while the rest of them do their level best to make up for the ops efficency. next time you are in a hospital outpatients look at the battle axes manning the desks, they have mountains of files, they also use computers, i am sure the files could be got rid of, as the contultants have pcs as well, one can go on and on.

imme

flutered wrote: »

all the above is true how many times has one been on a que to tax a car for example, the next time you are you will notice how one particular hatch goes through quite a number of people, while the rest of them do their level best to make up for the ops efficency.

I guess some renewals take longer than others. Motor Tax renewal is now available online, another example of public service efficency.:cool:

meditraitor

imme wrote: »

I guess some renewals take longer than others. Motor Tax renewal is now available online, another example of public service efficency.:cool:

Have the staff numbers been cut with this efficiency? Or have they increased since?

Answers on a postcard:cool:

imme

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

1. The Public Sector are so arrogant and aloof that they just cant be arrsed answering for their fcuk ups. 2. Again, if a Private Sector company fcuks up who does it affect? It's shareholders. What happens if a Private Sector company fcuks up? The CEO or whoever is responsible get's fired. That doesn't happen in the Public Sector.

I don't believe it's perception. You just have to walk into any Public Service office and see the many people sitting around looking disinterested. They are generally dressed in a scruffy slovenely fashion. No cut of work about them. They deal with you like you're an annoyance to them rather than a customer (the very reason for their employment!!!!)Try getting any transaction done through a Public Service Department. It takes a ridiculously long time for any progress. Each individual in the Civil/Public Service should have the courage of their convictions and the balls to stand up and be counted and challenge waste and laziness not just go with the flow.

arrogant
re the public sector **** ups, have you seen what happened in your name and mine in relation to Anglo. Who was held responsible there, the same in BOI and AIB, large pensions, bye bye CEO and good luck.

Yes, every public sector - civil service employee is a scruffy article.
They´re all the same, nice sweeping statements;)

imme

meditraitor wrote: »

Have the staff numbers been cut with this efficiency? Or have they increased since?

Answers on a postcard:cool:

where do I send the answers
During the time motor tax online was introduced there was a record high number of people taxing new and old cars, so the business of the Motor Tax divisions was sky high. I´d hope that they would review their numbers in terms of demand, wouldn´t you. As you know new car sales plummeted in recent years.

MrDarcy

chelseavera wrote: »

Well done..... double standards!

The CEO doesn't elect the board or anyone on it, the board of directors elect the CEO and the shareholders elect the board.

Charlie Mc Creevy being appointed to the board of Ryanair I imagine has nothing whatsoever to do with Michael O' Leary...

markpb

imme wrote: »

arrogant
re the public sector **** ups, have you seen what happened in your name and mine in relation to Anglo.

In that case, a private company failed (which they do regularly) but the government decided to make it everyone's problem.

P. Breathnach

MrDarcy wrote: »

... Charlie Mc Creevy being appointed to the board of Ryanair I imagine has nothing whatsoever to do with Michael O' Leary...

There's only one response to that: come off it!

MrDarcy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There's only one response to that: come off it!

Do you seriously think Michael O Leary would be of the view that Charlie Mc Creevy would be any use at anything other than talking out of his arse??? In any event the point is completely irrelevant, CEO's do not appoint board members.

imme

markpb wrote: »

In that case, a private company failed (which they do regularly) but the government decided to make it everyone's problem.

yes I understand a private company failed in that instance. I understand that private enterprises fail, business is tough.

In making Anglo everyone´s problem they heaped a whole lot of debt and not much hope of success or knowledge of how bad it could get on the shoulders of everyone.

imme

MrDarcy wrote: »

Do you seriously think Michael O Leary would be of the view that Charlie Mc Creevy would be any use at anything other than talking out of his arse??? In any event the point is completely irrelevant, CEO's do not appoint board members.

small sharholders don´t elect the board that´s for sure, it´s the big shareholders, pension funds etc.

Do you know of any independent board members on any board of a PLC in Ireland who is not a former golfing buddy of so and so or the former accountant of such and such, who is also connected to the board.

I don´t think O´Leary and McCreevy would be too out of step with each other on much. One question though, wtf does McCreevy know about the airline industry. Maybe having a former EU Commis on your board doesn´t help. The fact that Ryanair is regularly involved in difficulties with the EU Commission might not be unrelated to his appointment.

It´s one of the reasons why the banks failed so spectacularly, they were all connected on the various boards. Nobody wanted to voice a different opinion.

P. Breathnach

MrDarcy wrote: »

Do you seriously think Michael O Leary would be of the view that Charlie Mc Creevy would be any use at anything other than talking out of his arse??? In any event the point is completely irrelevant, CEO's do not appoint board members.

McCreevey would not have been appointed if O'Leary didn't want him; it's virtually certain that he would not have been appointed unless O'Leary actually wanted him.

Are you asking us to believe that the shareholders would ignore O'Leary's wishes?

meditraitor

imme wrote: »

where do I send the answers
During the time motor tax online was introduced there was a record high number of people taxing new and old cars, so the business of the Motor Tax divisions was sky high. I´d hope that they would review their numbers in terms of demand, wouldn´t you. As you know new car sales plummeted in recent years.

So what is the answer? Has the motor tax section reduced or increased staff numbers since the implementation of online tax?
And as you rightly pointed out the last 2 years has seen a massive reduction in cars being taxed so taking that into account can I be assured there is a drop in staffing levels to coincide with efficiency?

You could look for the information but I think you will find that the most recent data made available (june /sept 2010) is from 2000-2002.
Now thats PS/CS efficiency for ye! 8 years late

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAuditService/PublicationsDocuments/

This is why so many people feel agrieved, every part of the current PS/CS is rotten to the core with inefficiency and cost.

imme

meditraitor wrote: »

So what is the answer?

You could look for the information but I think you will find that the most recent data made available (june /sept 2010) is from 2000-2002.
Now thats PS/CS efficiency for ye! 8 years late

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAuditService/PublicationsDocuments/

This is why so many people feel agrieved, every part of the current PS/CS is rotten to the core with inefficiency and cost.

I don´t know the answer to that question, if I knew I would tell you, who´s got the look
Sorry don´t have the answer.

Why do you think stats for 2000-2002 would only be available now, are you being facetious

meditraitor

imme wrote: »

I don´t know the answer to that question, if I knew I would tell you, who´s got the look
Sorry don´t have the answer.

Why do you think stats for 2000-2002 would only be available now, are you being facetious

Facetious? I was just pointing out that in my opinion the FACT that audit analysis and data from 2000 and 2002 is only available now is indicative of the people that are supposed to provide this information, namely civil servents..... This information should be available yearly and for the public to look at so when inefficiencies come to light it is not to late to make changes....
If I ran a business like that I would be bankrupt (you see the parralells with Ireland inc?)

And one thing the unions/cs of this world don't want is changes to their little bubble,

imme

meditraitor wrote: »

Facetious? I was just pointing out that in my opinion the FACT that audit analysis and data from 2000 and 2002 is only available now is indicative of the people that are supposed to provide this information, namely civil servents..... This information should be available yearly and for the public to look at so when inefficiencies come to light it is not to late to make changes....
If I ran a business like that I would be bankrupt (you see the parralells with Ireland inc?)

And one thing the unions/cs of this world don't want is changes to their little bubble,

so the only figures you can find are old ones. If you contact the department etc concerned they'll supply them. I suggest there're online somewhere.
The employers (govt etc) know how many people are employed in relative departments/sections, if they didn't they'd be negligent.
Does the general public determine the numers in the public service?