Siptu- The money was just resting in our account?

macannrb · 16-10-2010 10:30am

deise blue wrote: »

Could'nt agree with you more.

The rush to convict SIPTU prior to the conclusion of the various investigations is both unedifying and speculative.

The same way SIPTU will rush to lash out at the government once they cut social welfare and raise tax on everybody? without considering the government doesn't have money to pay for these things (and a small part of that is their fault)

We all have our right to free speech within reason.

And the odds of a proper investigation occurring, and if that happens the odds of a propper investigation actually yeilding light on what happened and who benefited from this neat little sipty arrangement is slim to none. So really no one will ever be convicted. I think we are all sure of that.

deise blue · 16-10-2010 11:08am

macannrb wrote: »

The same way SIPTU will rush to lash out at the government once they cut social welfare and raise tax on everybody? without considering the government doesn't have money to pay for these things (and a small part of that is their fault)

We all have our right to free speech within reason.

And the odds of a proper investigation occurring, and if that happens the odds of a propper investigation actually yeilding light on what happened and who benefited from this neat little sipty arrangement is slim to none. So really no one will ever be convicted. I think we are all sure of that.

All very well but the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise still applies.

As such perhaps it would be better to await the conclusions of the 4 investigations before rushing to judgement.

kippy · 16-10-2010 12:00pm

deise blue wrote: »

All very well but the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise still applies.

As such perhaps it would be better to await the conclusions of the 4 investigations before rushing to judgement.

Again, you miss the point.
These investigations will lead to nothing. Do you believe any different?
We have a right to comment on these activities, which is what we are doing.
Without investigating ANYTHING there have been some exceptionly strange events in this whole saga, thats what is being commented on. We dont have the power to convict anyone, hence our discussions here are largely irrelevent.
However people are going to be angry when these events are eventualy brushed under a large carpet.

macannrb · 16-10-2010 12:04pm

deise blue wrote: »

All very well but the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise still applies.

As such perhaps it would be better to await the conclusions of the 4 investigations before rushing to judgement.

I think you missed my point, which is that SIPTU's higher moral authority on cuts to government expenditure and raised in taxes of its members should be put into context of its own negligent behaviour (either taking backhanders or having awfully poor financial controls)

deise blue · 16-10-2010 12:39pm

kippy wrote: »

Again, you miss the point.
These investigations will lead to nothing. Do you believe any different?
We have a right to comment on these activities, which is what we are doing.
Without investigating ANYTHING there have been some exceptionly strange events in this whole saga, thats what is being commented on. We dont have the power to convict anyone, hence our discussions here are largely irrelevent.
However people are going to be angry when these events are eventualy brushed under a large carpet.

That's where we differ - I believe that the investigations will cast light on these matters , I believe that all comments or judgements are currently taking place in the dark without recourse to all the facts.

kippy · 16-10-2010 12:47pm

deise blue wrote: »

That's where we differ - I believe that the investigations will cast light on these matters , I believe that all comments or judgements are currently taking place in the dark without recourse to all the facts.

Indeed, casting light is one thing - putting people in jail is another.
I can 100% guarentee that NOONE will do jail time after these investigations.
Thats where the problems lie.
We've had numerous "investigations" before, more light than that from the sun cast on events and people getting away with it.

serfboard · 16-10-2010 1:08pm

I'm trying to understand this.

A "senior union official" sets up a bank account with the word SIPTU in the title which SIPTU neither know about nor control.

What position do you have to be in to go into a bank and set up a SIPTU account? I mean, if I walk into a bank and tell them I want to set up a SIPTU account, is the bank going to ask for my bone fides? So,

1. What bank is this account in?
2. When was the account set up?
3. What identification/documentation was used to set up this account?
4. How many accounts are there in Irish banks with the words SIPTU in the title?
5. How many of these accounts do SIPTU know about?
6. Why would you, as a senior union official, set up an account with SIPTU in the title and not tell SIPTU about it?

Thing is - if there was one such account, who's to say there isn't more?

macannrb · 16-10-2010 1:32pm

serfboard wrote: »

I'm trying to understand this.

A "senior union official" sets up a bank account with the word SIPTU in the title which SIPTU neither know about nor control.

What position do you have to be in to go into a bank and set up a SIPTU account? I mean, if I walk into a bank and tell them I want to set up a SIPTU account, is the bank going to ask for my bone fides? So,

1. What bank is this account in?
2. When was the account set up?
3. What identification/documentation was used to set up this account?
4. How many accounts are there in Irish banks with the words SIPTU in the title?
5. How many of these accounts do SIPTU know about?
6. Why would you, as a senior union official, set up an account with SIPTU in the title and not tell SIPTU about it?

Thing is - if there was one such account, who's to say there isn't more?

Also how did the countless bank statements from this account slip through the post in SIPTU?

without the knowledge of those who open post in the organisation? Most companies have controls regardinng the opening of post and who does it

P. Breathnach · 16-10-2010 1:37pm

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, casting light is one thing - putting people in jail is another.
I can 100% guarentee that NOONE will do jail time after these investigations.
Thats where the problems lie.
We've had numerous "investigations" before, more light than that from the sun cast on events and people getting away with it.

The details of what happened have yet to be established, and you are complaining that nobody will go to jail. That looks to me like prejudice.

The inability or unwillingness of the powers-that-be to deal with misbehaviour is a real problem. We need to improve the way we do things in a number of ways:
clearer lines of responsibility/accountability;
better record-keeping and reporting (more managers, anybody?);
strong and properly-resourced investigation agencies;
a tidying-up of our laws to remove impediments;
and, most of all, the political will to improve things.

The selection of what looks like an easy target, like SIPTU in this case, does not make a worthwhile contribution to addressing the bigger question.

macannrb · 16-10-2010 1:52pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The details of what happened have yet to be established, and you are complaining that nobody will go to jail. That looks to me like prejudice.

Are you suggesting that there is an all but remote possibility that anyone will go to jail for this? If you are then my comment earlier about your views being reasonable should be withdrawn.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The inability or unwillingness of the powers-that-be to deal with misbehaviour is a real problem. We need to improve the way we do things in a number of ways:

We need to address all these things in Ireland, and perhaps this farcical episode can be a way to change how society judges those in power. SIPTU is a very large organisation which many people see in weekly affairs (and paychecks). Holding those accountable in SIPTU could be a turning point.

So why not seize the opportunity to come down harshly on this organisation and set an example for all those who waste Irish tax payers money. Then move onto any other group polictians, tribunals etc etc Route out the wasters and bring Ireland out of ruin.

kippy · 16-10-2010 2:32pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The details of what happened have yet to be established, and you are complaining that nobody will go to jail. That looks to me like prejudice.

The inability or unwillingness of the powers-that-be to deal with misbehaviour is a real problem. We need to improve the way we do things in a number of ways:
clearer lines of responsibility/accountability;
better record-keeping and reporting (more managers, anybody?);
strong and properly-resourced investigation agencies;
a tidying-up of our laws to remove impediments;
and, most of all, the political will to improve things.

The selection of what looks like an easy target, like SIPTU in this case, does not make a worthwhile contribution to addressing the bigger question.

The details of what happened will be established in a longwinded and non transparent manner. No one will be help responsible/accountable, no one will go to jail.
Thats not Prejudical, thats a realistic outlook on what will happen based on past instances of similiar misappropriation of funds (which is very obviously what this is)
I want to see someone go to jail, thats prejudical, but its also a correct set of morals. People have done wrong here in this case and indeed others I have spoken about. In a proper society people are punished for doing wrong.
We punish certain sectors of society by letting them off the hook with a massive golden handshake or promotion.......
Thats my problem.

You and others appear to be suggesting that the timing of this and indeed the organisation being "targeted" is questionable and pointing out that this could be an effort to undermine trade unions. Thats also prejudical.
It doesnt matter who does the wrong, the punishment should be the same across the board.

deise blue · 16-10-2010 2:34pm

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, casting light is one thing - putting people in jail is another.
I can 100% guarentee that NOONE will do jail time after these investigations.
Thats where the problems lie.
We've had numerous "investigations" before, more light than that from the sun cast on events and people getting away with it.

Well we're just going to have to wait until the investigations are concluded to see if any illegalities take place.

Or would you prefer to jail people without proof or trial ?

macannrb · 16-10-2010 2:48pm

kippy wrote: »

You and others appear to be suggesting that the timing of this and indeed the organisation being "targeted" is questionable and pointing out that this could be an effort to undermine trade unions. Thats also prejudical.
It doesnt matter who does the wrong, the punishment should be the same across the board.

+1 Couldnt agree with you more

deise blue wrote: »

Well we're just going to have to wait until the investigations are concluded to see if any illegalities take place.

Or would you prefer to jail people without proof or trial ?

The odds of any investigations yielding any useful information are so remote that no conviction could be possible. Do you really think SIPTU would hang their senior managers out to dry? I would think its more likely that shredding of relevant documents was done as soon as the account entered public domain.

Therefore since no one can reasonably expect convictions, why not punish the organisation as a whole? a large fine say, restrictions on what they pay their senior managers/CEOs, until they get their house in order

And in the mean time lets question their arguments against government austerity with the same cynicism that this affair reeks off

kippy · 16-10-2010 3:04pm

deise blue wrote: »

Well we're just going to have to wait until the investigations are concluded to see if any illegalities take place.

Or would you prefer to jail people without proof or trial ?

Can you honestly see anyone doing jail time for anything to do with this charade?

Of course there needs to be proof and a trial. I am making the very valid point that proof and a trial will not be forthcoming here.....

P. Breathnach · 16-10-2010 3:32pm

kippy wrote: »

... You and others appear to be suggesting that the timing of this and indeed the organisation being "targeted" is questionable and pointing out that this could be an effort to undermine trade unions. Thats also prejudical....

Prejudicial? That's just plain wrong. I never said anything about the timing of this, or its being part of an effort to undermine trade unions.

Never let the facts get in the way.

kippy · 16-10-2010 3:42pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Prejudicial? That's just plain wrong. I never said anything about the timing of this, or its being part of an effort to undermine trade unions.

Never let the facts get in the way.

The last line of your previous post would suggest otherwise.

P. Breathnach · 16-10-2010 5:04pm

kippy wrote: »

The last line of your previous post would suggest otherwise.

Only if misinterpreted.

kippy · 16-10-2010 5:07pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Only if misinterpreted.

Apologies, I must have misinterpreted it.

macannrb · 17-10-2010 9:10am

It looks like SIPTU are not the only ones who are having trouble with their accounts.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/union-loses-its-auditors-2382984.html?from=dailynews

maninasia · 17-10-2010 9:23am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The details of what happened have yet to be established, and you are complaining that nobody will go to jail. That looks to me like prejudice.

The inability or unwillingness of the powers-that-be to deal with misbehaviour is a real problem. We need to improve the way we do things in a number of ways:
clearer lines of responsibility/accountability;
better record-keeping and reporting (more managers, anybody?);
strong and properly-resourced investigation agencies;
a tidying-up of our laws to remove impediments;
and, most of all, the political will to improve things.

The selection of what looks like an easy target, like SIPTU in this case, does not make a worthwhile contribution to addressing the bigger question.

You're wrong it should start with prosecutions to get people back in line. Do you think ANYTHING of what you wrote above matters a jot? It doesn't until people are seen to be punished for wrongdoing, no matter if it is SIPTU or a banker or a government representative or a town planner.

P. Breathnach · 17-10-2010 11:28am

maninasia wrote: »

You're wrong it should start with prosecutions to get people back in line. Do you think ANYTHING of what you wrote above matters a jot? It doesn't until people are seen to be punished for wrongdoing, no matter if it is SIPTU or a banker or a government representative or a town planner.

In what way is it wrong to suggest that nobody should be punished for anything before it is known what actually happened?

In what way is it wrong to suggest ways in which the administration of public funds might be better controlled?

maninasia · 17-10-2010 2:15pm

My point is you are waffling on like a good government spokesman, when there is no accountability and there is seen to be no accountability there will be no substantial changes. Maybe a slap on the wrist here, a tribunal there, an early retirerment with a golden handshake and we'll leave it as is. Just waffle like all the other benchmarking and croke park agreements etc. When there is no deterrence or punishment for wrongdoing what can you do?
The whole thing stinks to high heaven from collaboration between unions and ministers on trips (eh did anybody actually VOTE for a union to be involved in government?), subsidised joy rides for unions and pay direct from government coffers and appointments to quangos and now this. You know what happens in most organisations when you put their money in personal accounts - Go to Jail. Stinks.

P. Breathnach · 17-10-2010 2:37pm

maninasia wrote: »

My point is you are waffling on like a good government spokesman...

That's not much of a point. So you say that I am wrong, and won't say in what way?

, when there is no accountability and there is seen to be no accountability there will be no substantial changes. Maybe a slap on the wrist here, a tribunal there, an early retirerment with a golden handshake and we'll leave it as is. Just waffle like all the other benchmarking and croke park agreements etc. When there is no deterrence or punishment for wrongdoing what can you do?
The whole thing stinks to high heaven from collaboration between unions and ministers on trips (eh did anybody actually VOTE for a union to be involved in government?), subsidised joy rides for unions and pay direct from government coffers and appointments to quangos and now this. You know what happens in most organisations when you put their money in personal accounts - Go to Jail. Stinks.

Who's waffling?

maninasia · 22-10-2010 5:43am

You don't like the message that your beloved union stinks?
The point is we already know nobody will be punished...we've got two Taoisigh who smell just as bad..nothing ever happened to them. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Apologists like you are the reason why the country is in such a state.

P. Breathnach · 22-10-2010 9:36am

maninasia wrote: »

You don't like the message that your beloved union stinks?
The point is we already know nobody will be punished...we've got two Taoisigh who smell just as bad..nothing ever happened to them. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Apologists like you are the reason why the country is in such a state.

Like most participants in this forum, I am here to have conversations about political matters.

You seem to want to have a conversation about me.

Go away.

maninasia · 23-10-2010 5:03am

There's always an excuse isn't there...

sceptre · 23-10-2010 10:44am

maninasia, as I said in your issued warning, you have two options: discuss the topic or don't use the thread. Personalising the discussion, as you've chosen to do, is not permitted. Kindly read the forum charter before posting again. If you have an issue with this, please send me a PM for clarification.

/mod

SkepticOne · 23-10-2010 2:35pm

In another interesting twist to the story, apparently a department of health official who was supposed to be on one of these "study" trips funded by the Siptu account continued to clock in for work while the trip was underway:

"While the department's internal audit has yet to be completed, as far as the former Department of Finance representative is concerned, it does not correspond to records in this department."

It said its attendance recording system showed the official 'keyed in' at its Dublin offices during a trip to New York in 2005, a trip to New York the following year, and a trip to Boston in 2007. URL="http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-official-on-nine-trips-paid-for-by-training-fund-2388862.html"]source[/URL

gandalf · 23-10-2010 3:02pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

In another interesting twist to the story, apparently a department of health official who was supposed to be on one of these "study" trips funded by the Siptu account continued to clock in for work while the trip was underway:

Well if that is true that person should be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. Of course its more than likely going to be a case of "you can't get me I'm part of the union" as usual.

P. Breathnach · 23-10-2010 4:08pm

gandalf wrote: »

Well if that is true that person should be summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. Of course its more than likely going to be a case of "you can't get me I'm part of the union" as usual.

How can you dismiss somebody who is retired?

Siptu- The money was just resting in our account?

Comments