Privatize Irish Rail, yay or nay?

Alan_H_1991

Privatize Irish Rail, yay or nay?

-Chris-

What's your opinion on the pros and cons of privatisation Alan?

(and don't say something like "well, it can't be any worse than it currently is" please...)

corktina

NAY. Why? well to Privatize it you would be giving away a valuable state asset, with no control of quality or level of service.

Were you to have said contract out the services and set up an Infrastructure company to own the track etc, then Id have said Yay.

who the fug

Well don't follow the UK model where the public gets shafted twice

once when paying the operator a subsidy
second when you have to buy a ticket


Privatisation is not an instant cure


Also don’t be impressed by a slap of paint , and ability to buy tickets online

CIE

corktina wrote: »

NAY. Why? well to Privatize it you would be giving away a valuable state asset, with no control of quality or level of service

No control? What makes you think you have any control of quality at all with state control? Seems to me none at all.

We all know what the politicians think of rail in terms of being a "valuable state asset": continue to close more lines and all the rest save Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast run at absurdly low speeds that would be laughed at in the steam era. Upgrade the roads to mid-20th-century standards (after a half-century of not doing so) and ignore the technological advancements of the railways, keeping them anachronistically stuck in the 1950s/60s. Worry about paint schemes more than upgrading operations.

I've yet to find any legitimate reason for the creation of Coras Iompair Eireann. It wasn't like GNR and GSR were losing so much money that they were going to go under instantaneously; they could have recovered without state interference. And most of the railway closures occurred under CIE anyhow.

corktina wrote: »

Were you to have said contract out the services and set up an Infrastructure company to own the track etc, then I'd have said Yay

Cite even one successful example of that. None exist. Luas isn't one.

BrianD

Can't see the consumer benefit. ALl you do is transfer a monopoly from the public to the private sector. The private sector does not have a great history of looking after the consumer if they have a monopoly. Prices go up to pay the guys at the top.

I think IR is too small for to be anything but a state body and I also think that the network is to small for any competitors to enter the market.

corktina

CIE wrote: »

No control? What makes you think you have any control of quality at all with state control? Seems to me none at all.

We all know what the politicians think of rail in terms of being a "valuable state asset": continue to close more lines and all the rest save Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast run at absurdly low speeds that would be laughed at in the steam era. Upgrade the roads to mid-20th-century standards (after a half-century of not doing so) and ignore the technological advancements of the railways, keeping them anachronistically stuck in the 1950s/60s. Worry about paint schemes more than upgrading operations.

I've yet to find any legitimate reason for the creation of Coras Iompair Eireann. It wasn't like GNR and GSR were losing so much money that they were going to go under instantaneously; they could have recovered without state interference. And most of the railway closures occurred under CIE anyhow.Cite even one successful example of that. None exist. Luas isn't one.

YAY or NAY then?

Niles

Personally I don't agree with the idea of selling off essential state assets, though I wouldn't have a problem with private freight operators being allowed in, or indeed private passenger services if they're willing to provide a better service on the likes of Waterford-Limerick, etc, subject to it meet set requirements (perhaps outlined by the NTA). Ideally these services would be contracted out by the State, similar to the way Bus Éireann contracts some school bus routes to private operators. Of course whether or not a private company would be willing to invest in such a different a service is a different question!

CIE

BrianD wrote: »

All you do is transfer a monopoly from the public to the private sector. The private sector does not have a great history of looking after the consumer if they have a monopoly

Before CIE, there wasn't a monopoly. It might be tenuously argued that there was a near-monopoly due to the size of the GSR, but it still wasn't there until the CIE takeover.

Hilly Bill

Nay.

CIE

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Nay.

Wherefore?

corktina

GNR was brought into the fold as they were pretty much bankrupt, as were pretty much all the other railways come to that, but particularly GNR

Manach

I'd consider privatisation as usually this sector introduces competition to drive down costs for the benefit of the clients. However, given the nature of the rail network, having this competition in place would be very problematic.

Hilly Bill

CIE wrote: »

Wherefore?

What?

kawasaki1100

Its yay for me, their looseing a fortune anyway and we are paying through the nose for that. Why does a train ticket cost you more on a friday than any other day of the week? Its bonkers!

kawasaki1100

kawasaki1100 wrote: »

Its yay for me, their looseing a fortune anyway and we are paying through the nose for that. Why does a train ticket cost you more on a friday than any other day of the week? Its bonkers!

Privatise IE and that ticket will cost a lot more.

Ben Hadad

It a pointless debate unfortunately. CIE is such a badly run company and is so far away from ever even breaking even, no private investor in their right mind would buy it.

But as a hypothetical question I would beg a private company to take it over. In fact I would pay a company to take it over. CIE is the worst run organisation I have ever seen in my life, and this is coming from an Irish person. It is a total joke, and a cancerous drain on the country primarily caused by ridiculous wages paid to its staff members, who in the main are quite rude and ignorant not just to paying customers but to the damage they are doing to the nations finances.

It is an abyss of a sink hole for our cash.

kawasaki1100

Karsini wrote: »

Privatise IE and that ticket will cost a lot more.

Your floggin a dead horse on that one. As it is they priceing themselves out of the market. The bus operators have it sussed, hey even bus eireann have it sussed.:D

kawasaki1100

kawasaki1100 wrote: »

Your floggin a dead horse on that one. As it is they priceing themselves out of the market. The bus operators have it sussed, hey even bus eireann have it sussed.:D

Maybe, but that's exactly what happened in the UK - fares went up when the service went into private hands.

kawasaki1100

Karsini wrote: »

Maybe, but that's exactly what happened in the UK - fares went up when the service went into private hands.

I agree with you about the UK, the problem was there there were too many private hands thus delivering a bad service also.
IE is small enough to be run as a business by a privateer, the way its been run now is a joke.

Niles

Ben Hadad wrote: »

It a pointless debate unfortunately. CIE is such a badly run company and is so far away from ever even breaking even, no private investor in their right mind would buy it.

But as a hypothetical question I would beg a private company to take it over. In fact I would pay a company to take it over. CIE is the worst run organisation I have ever seen in my life, and this is coming from an Irish person. It is a total joke, and a cancerous drain on the country primarily caused by ridiculous wages paid to its staff members, who in the main are quite rude and ignorant not just to paying customers but to the damage they are doing to the nations finances.

It is an abyss of a sink hole for our cash.

It being "badly run" doesn't necessarily mean that it should be privatised... it could remain in State ownership while at same time undergo a restructuring to make it better. Likewise making it private doesn't automatically mean it will or won't be run well either. As for the staff, it's a bit of a generalisation to say that "in the main" they are rude, I've encountered plenty of helpful and friendly staff on the ground. Besides, if it was privatised in the morning I would imagine many of the staff would be recruited into the new company anyway. And lest anyone thinks so I don't work for the company nor do I have any relatives in it.

kawasaki1100

Niles wrote: »

It being "badly run" doesn't necessarily mean that it should be privatised... it could remain in State ownership while at same time undergo a restructuring to make it better. Likewise making it private doesn't automatically mean it will or won't be run well either. As for the staff, it's a bit of a generalisation to say that "in the main" they are rude, I've encountered plenty of helpful and friendly staff on the ground. Besides, if it was privatised in the morning I would imagine many of the staff would be recruited into the new company anyway. And lest anyone thinks so I don't work for the company nor do I have any relatives in it.

Hmmm,a Michael O Leary person needs to go in there and kick ass, there is too much deadwood working for IE- sorry did i just say Working??

Drimnagh Road

I'd just like to see a bit more innitiative in the way routes are run, and as long as Irish Rail are continued to be bank rolled by the country unquestioned then I don't think they'll need show that initiative, why would they?

For example, the WRC might have a half chance of succeeding if it's potential to be linked with other regional routes was realised. Why not a direct 22000 from Cork-Galway calling at Mallow, Limerick, Ennis, Gort, Athenry and Galway every few hours? Journey time 3:15, would be competitive enough, have €10 fares and market rigourously focusing on the fact this is a corridor linking three key cities via at least two major regional towns (Mallow & Ennis).

Maybe the same would work with a Waterford-Galway link? Somehow I don't think Irish Rail are the people to get something Enterprising like these off the grounds. I'm not saying they would work, but I can guarantee you ideas such as these have not been looked at, because there isn't the interest. And that's what I'm on about by initiative. A privatised company might be more willing to look at getting the most out of what's in front of them.

With privatisation, subsidies will need to be continued to be paid of course. Could that be counter-acted by ensuring the best possible value for that subsidy?

For example when the Minister for Transport is accepting bids from operators for routes, could his team say right we want you to increase numbers on the WRC by 20%, Cork route by 10% etc etc in the first 12 months of operation, increase operating efficencies by 20%, reduce operating costs by 15% without impacting services? How would you do it? Okay company A gets the contract.

kawasaki1100

I honestly think the horse has bolted on this one. The Gov should have sold IE during the boom when it was attractive and when people were still working, now like everything else they have blown it. But i am glad the pensioners can still travel free on it.

Judgement Day

kawasaki1100 wrote: »

I honestly think the horse has bolted on this one. The Gov should have sold IE during the boom when it was attractive and when people were still working, now like everything else they have blown it. But i am glad the pensioners can still travel free on it.

I'm not sure whether you are a pensioner or if you were being sarcastic but assuming the latter, perhaps you will be lucky enough to live long enough to get a travel pass yourself. Attacking pensioners free travel is just another way of playing into the hands of the Government who are delighted to see different factions of the populace turning on each other rather than them. Divide and conquer is alive and well in 21st century Ireland.

kawasaki1100

Judgement Day wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you are a pensioner or if you were being sarcastic but assuming the latter, perhaps you will be lucky enough to live long enough to get a travel pass yourself. Attacking pensioners free travel is just another way of playing into the hands of the Government who are delighted to see different factions of the populace turning on each other rather than them. Divide and conquer is alive and well in 21st century Ireland.

Well i am afraid you are wrong in your assumption, none of the above apply to me. I fact due to our glorious Govt and their pals i now use Ryanair to get to work. At least for now iv got off our still sinking ship.

foggy_lad

So before CIE was formed there were several smaller bankrupt or failing railway companies which were then all gathered up into the one pot by the decision makers of the time and the government have been p1ssing our money at this failed group of companies ever since?

I take it the incompetants that were responsible for the old companies going bankrupt were given pride of place in operating and decision making in the newly formed CIE? as that is after all the irish way!

corktina

I don't think they were incompetant, it was the dreadful economic situation that Ireland were in and WW2 that caused the end nearly to be high. GSR stock in particular was pretty much all life expired

Hilly Bill

If CIE does get fully privatised and the travel cost goes up and the service doesnt get any better, what then? will you just want it to be changing hands until the few on here are happy?

runway16

Have to say "Nay".

For one, nobody could take it on without increasing fares, and cutting services in order to turn a profit, which is of course the raison d'etre of any private enterprise.

What does need to be done is for IE to be dismantled - and either split into one infrastructure provider / maintainer and an operator, or a new single entity which does both, which has a commercial mandate, can be thrown off certain rail lines (or all rail lines) for failing to deliver and is independently audited for every single item of cost and revenue so that it achieves the most value for the tax payer, and requires the smallest subsidy possible.

CIE

foggy_lad wrote: »

So before CIE was formed there were several smaller bankrupt or failing railway companies which were then all gathered up into the one pot by the decision makers of the time and the government have been p1ssing our money at this failed group of companies ever since?

I take it the incompetants that were responsible for the old companies going bankrupt were given pride of place in operating and decision making in the newly formed CIE? as that is after all the irish way

You have maybe half the story. The GSR was actually the beginning of state interference/ownership of the railways (formed by law; the 1924 Railways Act, for the purpose of monopolising all railways within the Free State). The company was well-known for being penny-pinchers: it was like pulling teeth to them to even get them to build the 800-class; they were late bloomers with dieselisation, preferring to maintain steamers built at the turn of the century with minimal upgrades such as using Belpaire fireboxes and superheating. Either way, they were not bankrupt when the state subsequently formed CIE; they were merged with the DUTC and formally absorbed by the state. The GSR were also involved in several trucking concerns and ran bus operations (as were the GNR) via takeovers, which meant they had conflicts of interest going, and of course since the government was paying for the roads while they had to pay for the rails out of pocket (story sound familiar?), their built-in conflicts of interest made them favour the government-cheese infrastructure over their own. And of course that got even worse when CIE took over, because they saw the railways in many places as "duplication" of infrastructure.

A lot of fully priivately-owned railways ended up failing in other countries not only due to punitive taxation and regulation, but of course government competing with them in terms of building up the infrastructure for competing modes of transport. Remember that many who were involved in Ireland's independence were rather left-wing (socialist and communist) in their thinking, and were fond of the bloated concept of state centralisation of transport (a tenet of the Communist Manifesto in fact; in their "ten planks", centralisation of transport is Plank 6).

corktina

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If CIE does get fully privatised and the travel cost goes up and the service doesnt get any better, what then? will you just want it to be changing hands until the few on here are happy?

Thats the idea, let out a franchise and if they dont perform, take it away.

corktina

I;m sorry but GSR was effectiively bankrupt on the formation of CIE. Years of having no capital for renewal meant that the whole system and the rolling stock was in need of renewal and GSR (a private company) had no means of raising the money necessary to keep the system going. Well into CIE days, you would see almost derelict 6 wheeled coaches in use and not only on branch lines, often hauled by brand new diesels which HAD to be bought as the steam fleet was almost completely knackered.

Judgement Day

corktina wrote: »

I;m sorry but GSR was effectiively bankrupt on the formation of CIE. Years of having no capital for renewal meant that the whole system and the rolling stock was in need of renewal and GSR (a private company) had no means of raising the money necessary to keep the system going. Well into CIE days, you would see almost derelict 6 wheeled coaches in use and not only on branch lines, often hauled by brand new diesels which HAD to be bought as the steam fleet was almost completely knackered.

Yes, but it shouldn't be forgotten that many of the railway's problems stemmed from the two World Wars not just lack of investment. The aftermath of WWI saw a surge in the growth of own account operators particular on the road freight side of things and private bus operators also proliferated - pretty much like the present day. No sooner had the GSR begun to get on top of things than WW II arrived with all the associated fuel problems. So, in my opinion, it is wrong to portray the GSR has some sort of moribund concern like CIE - it was a professional outfit and a victim of circumstances outside of its control.

corktina

quite right and the UK companies were pretty much on their knees after ww2 also

n97 mini

Keep the rail "network" in state ownership (but contract out running and maintenance). Then contract out the various routes.

Someone said the ticket price would go up. Given the level of inefficiencies already in IE the total cost of running the railways would go down.

And anyway, it's not fair to lumber tax-payers in Cavan, Monaghan, and Donegal, or other places, with the cost of subsidising a railway that they don't realistically ever get to use.

CIE

corktina wrote: »

I;m sorry but GSR was effectively bankrupt on the formation of CIE. Years of having no capital for renewal meant that the whole system and the rolling stock was in need of renewal and GSR (a private company) had no means of raising the money necessary to keep the system going. Well into CIE days, you would see almost derelict 6 wheeled coaches in use and not only on branch lines, often hauled by brand new diesels which HAD to be bought as the steam fleet was almost completely knackered

"Effectively bankrupt" meaning what?

Sorry, but I don't take the state's word as gospel. The GSR was created by an act of the Free State to monopolise all the railways they could within the borders of the 26 counties, as well as get their hands into competing trucking and bus operations (most notably Irish Omnibus), so that's not exactly a private company. There were subsequent legislative acts after the acquisition of the largest roads (GSWR, MGWR, DSER, CBSCR) to allow GSR to swallow up remaining roads. CIE's subsequent behaviour certainly bore out the folly of state operation. Ireland was at least a decade late (if not two) in terms of converting from steam to diesel, and that was most likely due to the GSR's machinations. Therefore that company was merely an intermediate, and a state-conceived apparatus, to make the transfer to open state ownership more palatable to the public.

Of course, CIE is perpetually "effectively bankrupt", but that's the nature of state entities, isn't it? CIE merely followed the pattern set by other countries, which also included dieselisation of passenger services, running three-quarter-century-old passenger stock until it was falling apart on the rails, then have the state subsidise the passenger service, then have the state take over the operations outright. (Those that left freight service in private hands experienced a renaissance of railfreight though.)

Leave public-private partnerships alone. Those derived from the fascist economic model.

Cookie_Monster

Privatise them

Split infrastructure and operation

To those who say prices will go up etc, there will obviously continue to be gov subvention to the private company but it will be much lower than to IE, since the private company will obviously have far fewer overheads, non unionised staff going spare all over the place for example.

CIE

Split infrastructure and operation

You envision dispatching under "operation", I take it?

DWCommuter

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Privatise them

Split infrastructure and operation

To those who say prices will go up etc, there will obviously continue to be gov subvention to the private company but it will be much lower than to IE, since the private company will obviously have far fewer overheads, non unionised staff going spare all over the place for example.

The most obvious next step.

DWCommuter

CIE wrote: »

You envision dispatching under "operation", I take it?

Snore.:rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster

CIE wrote: »

You envision dispatching under "operation", I take it?

No, a Network Rail type setup.

What I should have stated in the original post would be keep the infrastructure owned by the state and operated by a state owned but independent company to ensure no asset stripping or excessive shareholder payments etc takes place. It's a difficult one to balance to ensure you get as little state interference as possible but enough control maintained to keep it focused in the right way.

The operations side (the rolling stock basically) can be leased out Luas style to a private operator(s) to run set service levels and so forth. Or simply sold fully to them. There can be allowances to increase or decrease services in line with available slots on routes, passenger demand, minimum service levels and so forth.

purplepanda

BrianD wrote: »

I think IR is too small for to be anything but a state body and I also think that the network is to small for any competitors to enter the market.

So once IE decides to close down a regional rail line no other rail operating companies should be allowed to run services?

Just because IE don't have the ability to run any regional railway service doesn't mean that another private rail operator can't attract more passengers & run a more frequent service.

If IE fails it's remit others should be given a chance, IE has closed enough lines over the past 50 years :mad:

CIE

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No, a Network Rail type setup.

What I should have stated in the original post would be keep the infrastructure owned by the state and operated by a state owned but independent company to ensure no asset stripping or excessive shareholder payments etc takes place. It's a difficult one to balance to ensure you get as little state interference as possible but enough control maintained to keep it focused in the right way.

The operations side (the rolling stock basically) can be leased out Luas style to a private operator(s) to run set service levels and so forth. Or simply sold fully to them. There can be allowances to increase or decrease services in line with available slots on routes, passenger demand, minimum service levels and so forth.

Be careful what you wish for. I warned against PPPs earlier in this thread. The former operator of the South Eastern services is now running Luas, after all (got a seven-year contract cut short at four years). Complaints about fares being too high haven't quietened down in general over in Network Rail land. There's also the matter of foreign companies running your rail and as to whether or not they have the best interests of the local passengers at heart (Connex/Veolia and Keolis being French, and over in Britain, Deutsche Bahn now running EWS; DB in particular have been criticised for lack of investment in their overseas bus company and railway purchases).

corktina

CIE wrote: »

"Effectively bankrupt" meaning what?

Sorry, but I don't take the state's word as gospel. The GSR was created by an act of the Free State to monopolise all the railways they could within the borders of the 26 counties, as well as get their hands into competing trucking and bus operations (most notably Irish Omnibus), so that's not exactly a private company. There were subsequent legislative acts after the acquisition of the largest roads (GSWR, MGWR, DSER, CBSCR) to allow GSR to swallow up remaining roads. CIE's subsequent behaviour certainly bore out the folly of state operation. Ireland was at least a decade late (if not two) in terms of converting from steam to diesel, and that was most likely due to the GSR's machinations. Therefore that company was merely an intermediate, and a state-conceived apparatus, to make the transfer to open state ownership more palatable to the public.

Of course, CIE is perpetually "effectively bankrupt", but that's the nature of state entities, isn't it? CIE merely followed the pattern set by other countries, which also included dieselisation of passenger services, running three-quarter-century-old passenger stock until it was falling apart on the rails, then have the state subsidise the passenger service, then have the state take over the operations outright. (Those that left freight service in private hands experienced a renaissance of railfreight though.)

Leave public-private partnerships alone. Those derived from the fascist economic model.

history is history. You can't put spin on it. Other countries did NOT run 75 year old falling apart 6 wheelers into the post ww2 period.Ireland was actually advanced in adopting Diesels. Please stop manipulating facts to suit your own agenda.

-Chris-

DWCommuter wrote: »

Snore.:rolleyes:

Post constructively please

silverharp

I'm not convinced that Ireland can afford railways, you have a small population which is dispersed. Given the fixed costs involved, is it fair to tax people who never use the service. If it can be run at a profit then it can fund itself. Essentially people want a way of getting from A to B at a cost they can afford and if they are not willing to pay the unsubsidised cost of travel then its a waste of resouces to provide the service.
so privatise it and see what survives.

icdg

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No, a Network Rail type setup.

What I should have stated in the original post would be keep the infrastructure owned by the state and operated by a state owned but independent company to ensure no asset stripping or excessive shareholder payments etc takes place. It's a difficult one to balance to ensure you get as little state interference as possible but enough control maintained to keep it focused in the right way.

The operations side (the rolling stock basically) can be leased out Luas style to a private operator(s) to run set service levels and so forth. Or simply sold fully to them. There can be allowances to increase or decrease services in line with available slots on routes, passenger demand, minimum service levels and so forth.

You are essentially asking us to repeat all of the mistakes made in the privatisation of British Rail. Its often been wrote that the biggest mistake was to seperate infrastructure and operations. That was done to facilitate competition, but in fact Open Access (which was meant to be the ultimate goal of rail privatisation) never took off and only three open access operators exist, meaning that most companies run as a monopoly (particularly since franchises in London were reformed so that only one company runs out of most London terminals, you no longer even have a choice between an Intercity and an ex-Network SouthEast operator).

What the seperation of infrastructure, operations, and (initally) maintenance did was create a "blame game", when after an accident (and there were a couple of high profile ones during the late 1990s), the operator blamed Railtrack, Railtrack blamed the maintenance contractors, they blamed the Rolling Stock Leasing Companies (who are licences to print money if they ever existed - naturally they were bought by banks). Nobody took responsiblity for anything.

First thing Network Rail did when it was formed was to take maintenance back in house.

As for franchises, it has turned out that franchises have had very short life expectancies. Take suburban services on the Great Eastern main line. This was the Great Eastern Railway franchise. The shadow franchise, operated by BR, was GER - Great Eastern Railway, it then became First Great Eastern on privatisation, the franchise was then combined with Anglia and became the stupidly named "one", then National Express East Anglia. Next year it will get another new name when another franchisee (NS) takes over. That's five brand names in seventeen years. That's by no means atypical of the British network. Very few of the original franchises survive, of the 25 granted in 1994-1997, only South West Trains and Virgin West Coast are left (and the latter only because Virgin was granted a super-long franchise which only expires next year). If the turnover rate of franchises is so high, they must all be doing something wrong? Or maybe there is something wrong with the system in the first place.

dowlingm

Splitting Infrastructure and Operation is now required by EU law from which we have a derogation. How many derogations is Ireland going to get in years to come? I doubt the Eurocracy feels as benevolent as it used to.

The problem with straight up privatisation is that at the moment there aren't many players with free capital to invest and those that are will want substantial assurance of a return (think toll bridges) as they will be aware of a default risk which even five years ago would have been laughable. The time to privatise is not at the bottom of the market and especially when that bottom comes with a credit crunch.

(Actually I would say the canny government nationalises at times like this - pick up assets you privatised for 100mill for 10mill rather than leave the private owner have a firesale which leaves the assets useless, like when US and Canadian railroad abandon track and tear it up to avoid property taxation. Problem is that usually States can borrow when private players can't, or print money. Not this State.)

Before the NPRF was given away at the behest of the ECB and the boards of the banks, there could have been some sleight of hand where the NPRF formed a rolling stock company and acquired IE's rolling stock and leased it back - everything is still owned by the State but pension fund capital invested into IE by the back door. It could have also decided to add TPWS and thus make stock leasable by NIR during busy periods.

I would like to see Enterprise privatised - it's a unique service being crossborder so it doesn't fit snugly into either operation. I don't feel the current model where NIR and IE have to be in lockstep on any improvements is tenable because we see the effect - during the boom when an hourly clockface could have been put in it wasn't, and where the degradation of the line could have been protested by a private operator it was accepted by the State players.

Hilly Bill

From what i read there are a few on here that supports the loss of hundreds of Irish jobs in favour of non irish companies who would employ foreign staff at less cost which means working longer hours for less pay and the quality of work will be worse.
What about the cost of training new staff? Its easy enough to sit back and post your ideas on here but i dont think anyone has actually thought about the outcome.
Look what happened in the UK and the accidents that happened, do you want that company working here? They have a history of undercutting to get contracts and would no doubt win a contract here if they do the same.
Be careful in what you wish for, its people's jobs and income you are playing with.

Cookie_Monster

Hilly Bill wrote: »

From what i read there are a few on here that supports the loss of hundreds of Irish jobs in favour of non irish companies who would employ foreign staff at less cost which means working longer hours for less pay and the quality of work will be worse.

just like aircoach right?

What makes you think it wouldn't be an Irish company?