Should criminal proceedings be taken against these people?

Boombastic

Should criminal proceedings be taken against these people?


From todays independent

The findings from the HSE's national office of internal audit showed that a number of staff were reporting for duty to an unnamed special care unit in Limerick and receiving weekend premium payments even though it was closed.







I think it is blatant thievery from the HSE. Getting paid for and claiming extra payments for working at a unit that's closed. Surely these people knew they were getting the money under false pretenses? Whoever authorised these payments should also be prosecuted. This is only a sample of what was found in the audit. I think these people should be made to payback all the money and criminal proceedings taken against them.

kaimera

Yes.

There's a queue of people in front of them from the banks that should be prosecuted first.

Won't happen tho.

kylith

They should certainly have all money fraudulently acquired deducted from their wages until every red cent is paid back.

Boombastic

kylith wrote: »

They should certainly have all money fraudulently acquired deducted from their wages until every red cent is paid back.

Why should they keep their jobs at all? They have stolen from their employer. I agree about being made to pay it back.


Edit: I also think they should be named and shamed

SEPT 23 1989

One taxi firm charged €8.33 a mile for a six-mile journey.

In contrast, another covered a distance of 66.6 miles and the payment worked out at 0.75c a mile.

What utter gob****e signed off on this payment?:mad:

HondaSami

The manager who signed off on this should be sacked and the people who made false claims should also be sacked.
The biggest problem in the public service is management, not all of them but a lot them.

Boombastic

HondaSami wrote: »

The manager who signed off on this should be sacked and the people who made false claims should also be sacked.
The biggest problem in the public service is management, not all of them but a lot them.

This is what should happen. Wasn't the Croke Park Agreement supposed to have introduced accountability? Lets see it in action!!

sfwcork

you cant beat the public sector bashing threads on here

Boombastic

sfwcork wrote: »

you cant beat the public sector bashing threads on here

Do you think this is OK?


It's not bashing if it is the truth:rolleyes:

SEPT 23 1989

I would love Michael o Leary to come in and turn around this absolute disaster once and for all

Mountjoy Mugger

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I would love Michael o Leary to come in and turn around this absolute disaster once and for all

Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

MOL will be charging you per injection, for each cuppa tea, arse wipe, blanket, and if you're not better by the time he says you should be, he'll toss you out on the street.

HondaSami

sfwcork wrote: »

you cant beat the public sector bashing threads on here

I'm a public servant and this type of abuse really annoys me, it gives the hard working people in the ps a bad rep.
Management have a lot to answer for imo. It's not ps bashing when it's fair to bash them.

Odysseus

HondaSami wrote: »

I'm a public servant and this type of abuse really annoys me, it gives the hard working people in the ps a bad rep.
Management have a lot to answer for imo. It's not ps bashing when it's fair to bash them.

Well even a broken clock is right twice a day.

kylith

Boombastic wrote: »

Why should they keep their jobs at all? They have stolen from their employer. I agree about being made to pay it back.


Edit: I also think they should be named and shamed

I just figured it as the easiest way to get the money back off of them. They can't claim that they're unable to pay a fine if their wages are being garnished.

Boombastic

kylith wrote: »

I just figured it as the easiest way to get the money back off of them. They can't claim that they're unable to pay a fine if their wages are being garnished.

Garnish their dole;)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sfwcork wrote: »

you cant beat the public sector bashing threads on here

It's fraud. Private sector workers have been basked for fraud as well, ya know.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I would love Michael o Leary to come in and turn around this absolute disaster once and for all

Noooooo.... for so many reasons, no.

Doc Ruby

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It's fraud. Private sector workers have been basked for fraud as well, ya know.

Its always funny when these threads come along and someone responds with "but private sector workers" as if they were two teams in a match.

Nobody gives a feck about private sector workers since nobody is obliged to pay their wages.

Public sector workers on the other hand take a cut out of every bit of profit I make and every cent I earn, so I feel I have the right to be annoyed at tales of corruption (and this is far from the first), incompetence, and fraud.

Boombastic

Poll added


Even if we were going to compare to the private sector...where did Garlic man end up?

That's the place these people should be going, after they too pay it back, but as long as they have their apologists defending the indefensible there will never be true reform.


Looks like the unions have done a good job of brainwashing some of their members, convincing them that any negative publicity about the public sector is only to bash them and holds no merit. The honest workers in the public sector are as disgusted by this as those in the private sector (I assume).

Odysseus

From what I can see in that link, I can see nothing illegal and certainly not fraud. It states that staff where reporting to work in a centre which is closed.

If that is correct, those staff have done nothing illegal. Some manager for reasons which we are not being told has signed that off. So if staff have been told by a line manager to sign on for days they have not worked, I cannot see anything illegal in that. I may have other issues with it, but if I am correct can any here show me under what act they could be charged?

And of course if I am not correct and somebody has extra info to show that I would love to see it.

Where To

What are they doing wrong, exactly?

If someone offers me 8.33 a mile I take it.

Allyall

Will Criminal proceedings be taken against these people?

Yes ██ 1
No █████████████████████████████████████████████ 3,892


Should Politicians get locked up when they are corrupt?

It doesn't matter. They won't.

Boombastic

@ Odysseus - not sure about the legal aspect

Where To wrote: »

What are they doing wrong, exactly?

If someone offers me 8.33 a mile I take it.

Why don't they have a policy in place? we pay x / Km for taxis


also, why are they still working in Miles??

HondaSami

Where To wrote: »

What are they doing wrong, exactly?

If someone offers me 8.33 a mile I take it.

One taxi firm charged €8.33 a mile for a six-mile journey.

Some taxi drivers -- who were ferrying patients to attend centres in Limerick, Tullamore, Galway and Dublin -- were more than doubling the mileage if they had two passengers

In contrast, another covered a distance of 66.6 miles and the payment worked out at 0.75c a mile.

Three taxi firms charged for patients on a particular day even though they were not named on the booking schedule.

The taxi firms are wrong here and management is equally wrong not to check what it is they are paying for.

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

@ Odysseus - not sure about the legal aspect



Why don't they have a policy in place? we pay x / Km for taxis


also, why are they still working in Miles??

Unless it can legally be called fraud I can't see how people can ask for them to pay money back. Certainly nothing criminal can happen unless a law is broken, which in case of the staff over the x-mas period I can't see anything illegal, if it was passed by a manager.

Now if that article told me why those staff where paid it would be real reporting, it just seems like finger pointing at the moment.

A lot of systems still work in miles, I know mileage paid to staff is still measure in miles. Once it is correct it should not matter, I would be more focused on it being correct.

Madam_X

1. When someone without any legal background says "It's illegal!" I immediately, with great confidence, assume it isn't. How the **** are we qualified to know whether criminal proceedings should be taken against them btw?

2. Since this was reported in the Spindependent, I'll be skeptical as to its authenticity until it is corroborated by non anti public sector news sources.

Boombastic

Ok to translate it to a different sector.

I own supermarkets. I am paying you to run a branch. You hire all these staff and invoice me (including special overtime payments) , but you never actually open the supermarket.

It's a big scam and just because it's the hse involved doesn't make it any less so.


Why hasn't this unit been named? We need to know how many staff are involved.


@Odysseus: Staff over the x-period?? I don't see x-mas being mentioned at all. Can you explain?

Where To

Boombastic wrote: »

@ Odysseus - not sure about the legal aspect



Why don't they have a policy in place? we pay x / Km for taxis


also, why are they still working in Miles??

There is a policy in place, taxis tender forcontracts and contracts are awarded, the company didnt just decide to charge that, that's the rate that was agreed.

Same goes for the workers in the care unit, it's not their fault they are paidfor doing nothing, so why should they be punished?

Boombastic

Where To wrote: »

There is a policy in place, taxis tender forcontracts and contracts are awarded, the company didnt just decide to charge that, that's the rate that was agreed.

Same goes for the workers in the care unit, it's not their fault they are paidfor doing nothing, so why should they be punished?

For the taxis the tenders awarded need to be investigated. Who awarded the contracts at that price? What relationship do they have with the taxi company?



The workers could have at least spoke up about it. I've heard nothing from the politicians or the media about this centre before now? How long has this been going on for?

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

Ok to translate it to a different sector.

I own supermarkets. I am paying you to run a branch. You hire all these staff and invoice me (including special overtime payments) , but you never actually open the supermarket.

It's a big scam and just because it's the hse involved doesn't make it any less so.


Why hasn't this unit been named? We need to know how many staff are involved.


@Odysseus: Staff over the x-period?? I don't see x-mas being mentioned at all. Can you explain?

Yeah, Maybe I'm wrong, I thought the payment whilst the unit was closed referred to a unit being closed over the x-mas period, hence the extra payments.

I could be wrong, it is not mentioned in the link, now I looked at the times when I was getting milk this morning so maybe I saw it there. Because I had a big smile reading it, thinking I beg there is a thread on this calling for blood.

It is the paper not naming the unit, I imagine the know, as well as the reasons why this was signed off. However, I'm not sure WE NEED TO KNOW how many staff.

The people we charge with evaluating services need to know all the info, I'm not sure if every citizen needs to know everything about the HSE.

What I want to know before I start calling people criminals is why this was signed off, how signed it off, and how high up was this authorised? Only them can we start saying if it was a scam or not.

Boombastic

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah, Maybe I'm wrong, I thought the payment whilst the unit was closed referred to a unit being closed over the x-mas period, hence the extra payments.

I could be wrong, it is not mentioned in the link, now I looked at the times when I was getting milk this morning so maybe I saw it there. Because I had a big smile reading it, thinking I beg there is a thread on this calling for blood.

It is the paper not naming the unit, I imagine the know, as well as the reasons why this was signed off. However, I'm not sure WE NEED TO KNOW how many staff.

The people we charge with evaluating services need to know all the info, I'm not sure if every citizen needs to know everything about the HSE.

What I want to know before I start calling people criminals is why this was signed off, how signed it off, and how high up was this authorised? Only them can we start saying if it was a scam or not.

Extra payments were for weekend work as I understand it. I think the public do need to know the extent of it and be kept informed of what follow up action (if any) is taken.

Where To

Boombastic wrote: »

For the taxis the tenders awarded need to be investigated. Who awarded the contracts at that price? What relationship do they have with the taxi company?



The workers could have at least spoke up about it. I've heard nothing from the politicians or the media about this centre before now? How long has this been going on for?

The tenders are awarded to the most expedient operator. Most HSE taxi contracts are being done at ridiculously low rates, would you be in favour of all these being increased at extra cost to the HSE?

Boombastic

Where To wrote: »

The tenders are awarded to the most expedient operator. Most HSE taxi contracts are being done at ridiculously low rates, would you be in favour of all these being increased at extra cost to the HSE?

A lot of taxis are used to transfer scans, there are more cost effective ways of sending these scans but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of the HSE.


I'd be in favour of a standard national rate to be paid to taxis by the HSE.


I had to look up this:)

Expedient - Adjective
(of an action) Convenient and practical, although possibly improper or immoral.
Noun
A means of attaining an end, esp. one that is convenient but considered improper or immoral.

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

Extra payments were for weekend work as I understand it. I think the public do need to know the extent of it and be kept informed of what follow up action (if any) is taken.

Do they? I'm not sure exactly what the need to know, yes they have the right to assess services but to what extent. If the have a particular question then it should of course be answered, through FOI for example.

Where are you getting you info for the weekend payment by the way?

Boombastic

Odysseus wrote: »

Do they? I'm not sure exactly what the need to know, yes they have the right to assess services but to what extent. If the have a particular question then it should of course be answered, through FOI for example.

Where are you getting you info for the weekend payment by the way?

read OP and link:)


They need to know
How many involved?
Who authorised these payments? Who is responsible and why weren't they held accountable? How high up was it sanctioned?
How were the people recruited?
Do they have any relationship with the incompetent mangers?
How long has it been closed and how many staff involved at what levels?

Where To

Boombastic wrote: »

A lot of taxis are used to transfer scans, there are more cost effective ways of sending these scans but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of the HSE.

I'd be in favour of a standard national rate to be paid to taxis by the HSE.

That wouldnt be at all viable. If I was getting the same rate for a run from Donegal to Dublin as a run from the Beaumont to the Mater, I would be happy enough, but not many others would be.


edit, yeah that's why I used the word expedient, my prices are so low they are borderline immoral

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

For the taxis the tenders awarded need to be investigated. Who awarded the contracts at that price? What relationship do they have with the taxi company?



The workers could have at least spoke up about it. I've heard nothing from the politicians or the media about this centre before now? How long has this been going on for?

Exactly why should the workers have to speak up about this? If the organisation has passed this, what obligation is on them?

Also do you I'm am not allowed contact the media about my HSE work, AFAIR there is something in my contact about it. All media contact has to be passed by the HSE Communications Dept.

Odysseus

Boombastic wrote: »

read OP and link:)


They need to know
How many involved?
Who authorised these payments? Who is responsible and why weren't they held accountable? How high up was it sanctioned?
How were the people recruited?
Do they have any relationship with the incompetent mangers?
How long has it been closed and how many staff involved at what levels?

Until we know why it was sanctioned, we don't know if any wrong was done. I not sure if the public have a right to all that info, if this is to be investigated those charge with doing so have a right to that info. Where it is passed on from there I'm not sure, but no service has to show the public every decision that has been made.

We charge other to do that for us.

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

Also do you I'm am not allowed contact the media about my HSE work, AFAIR there is something in my contact about it. All media contact has to be passed by the HSE Communications Dept.

Have you ever claimed mileage yourself?

Think_then_talk

We should look at the people at the top,they get rewarded for the biggest
f/up's in the state. When they leave the public office we give them the
Golden handshake and a top job paid with public monies.
As for the (hse) well you cant blame the worker who was told by their
manager (you are now to report to unit X @ 8am) The manager is the one
who has to answer for his/her folly.
But wait tis the (hse) they have no proper communications system €201 million later [ppars]. Pity someone can't come up with a system for them use.
http://tinyurl.com/ax7ttdr

MagicSean

It's a pretty big assumption to assume this is fraudulent and not just bad management. Were they required to report there or were they just pretending to? Were they reporting there and then being sent somewhere else? Were they assigned there officially but working elsewhere instead?

bluecode

Similar abuses of the system are all over the place. Probably not just in the PS.

One similar I heard of was for on call staff in a hospital. They would get paid for a session morning and afternoon. But outside those times any work was paid by the task. They had a lunch break outside the session. So they did all the tests during lunch and went to lunch later.

On a good day they could net nearly €700 Euros a day on top of their already considerable salary.

They didn't get fired when the loophole was discovered or even disciplined.

Odysseus

Where To wrote: »

That wouldnt be at all viable. If I was getting the same rate for a run from Donegal to Dublin as a run from the Beaumont to the Mater, I would be happy enough, but not many others would be.


edit, yeah that's why I used the word expedient, my prices are so low they are borderline immoral

From what I could see, some taxi frims seems to be chancing their arm, and maybe getting away with it in some cases. This is the nearest I have seen to fraud here so far, and that is the taxi driver/firm not the HSE

I know I haven't seen a taxi book for over 4 years now never mind ordering one. I used to be able to order one if needed, so maybe one or two a year. Now if I needed one I think I would have to ring my services admin building 10 miles away and by pass my manager and go straight to the Area OPs Manager, now if I have to bother her for a taxi I am wasting a lot of time.

Boombastic

Whistleblowers legislation


Transparency


Staff are guilty by being complicit in the fraud.


@whereto: Paid by mile (in pounds?? :pac:), so you go further, you get paid more. If they don't like it, tough!

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Have you ever claimed mileage yourself?

I will gladly answer that, but first if I may ask why do you ask?

Where To

Odysseus wrote: »

From what I could see, some taxi frims seems to be chancing their arm, and maybe getting away with it in some cases. This is the nearest I have seen to fraud here so far, and that is the taxi driver/firm not the HSE

I know I haven't seen a taxi book for over 4 years now never mind ordering one. I used to be able to order one if needed, so maybe one or two a year. Now if I needed one I think I would have to ring my services admin building 10 miles away and by pass my manager and go straight to the Area OPs Manager, now if I have to bother her for a taxi I am wasting a lot of time.

They can't get away with on their own though, payments have to be sanctioned

Doc Ruby

Odysseus wrote: »

I will gladly answer that, but first if I may ask why do you ask?

Yeah, you've pretty much already answered it.

When we get comments like this,

"Until we know why it was sanctioned, we don't know if any wrong was done. I not sure if the public have a right to all that info, if this is to be investigated those charge with doing so have a right to that info. Where it is passed on from there I'm not sure, but no service has to show the public every decision that has been made."

what happens in the public sector stays in the public sector guff, complete with circling the wagons and spinning so hard the foundations of the building risk damage, displays the wrong attitude. And then ye wonder why there are so many public sector roasting threads.

The public sector is absolutely accountable to the public, in particular financially, any organisational information not related to someone's private life should be available for inspection. Most of it is, in fact, although there may be a fee under the freedom of information act.

We'll take your money and you'll like it seems to be the general approach. This has to stop.

Where To

Boombastic wrote: »

Whistleblowers legislation


Transparency


Staff are guilty by being complicit in the fraud.


@whereto: Paid by mile (in pounds?? :pac:), so you go further, you get paid more. If they don't like it, tough!

I like your thinking, but that's not how it works in the real world.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Have you ever claimed mileage yourself?

The more I think about it Doc, the more I have to ask what me claiming milage has to do with the topic here, since we are not even really takling about staff mileage cliams.

However, I saifd I would answer so it is a bit long, but there is a reason for it.


I am based in one clinic as my main base, but I have to travell during work hours to see clients in two other clients, as well as travel to meeting in admin building, seeing clients in the various jails, hospitals etc.

As of last year we no longer get paid to travel to most meetings only to see clients. I haven't claimed travel in over a year, why?

I commute on a bike, compared to the rate for a car 1lt [I think] 82c per mile, for a bike it was 18c a mile.

In order to claim you must have your insurance indemified [sp] again with the bike and bike insurance being what it is over here, it to do so it would cost me an extra 1000e to claim 18c a mile. So I no longer claim. They change the level around the indemity last year which made it impossible for me to claim.

So I now pay for my own travel, I could get a bus pass off them but I would do that.

But with meetings no longer being paid for travel, staff have to decide whether they will attend a meeting. So staff who are needed are dropping out of meeting as they cannot afford the travel, in some cases it could be a 10 mile in others 50.

Anyway as I said I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic but I hope I answered your question.

Odysseus

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Yeah, you've pretty much already answered it.

When we get comments like this,

"Until we know why it was sanctioned, we don't know if any wrong was done. I not sure if the public have a right to all that info, if this is to be investigated those charge with doing so have a right to that info. Where it is passed on from there I'm not sure, but no service has to show the public every decision that has been made."

what happens in the public sector stays in the public sector guff, complete with circling the wagons and spinning so hard the foundations of the building risk damage, displays the wrong attitude. And then ye wonder why there are so many public sector roasting threads.

The public sector is absolutely accountable to the public, in particular financially, any organisational information not related to someone's private life should be available for inspection. Most of it is, in fact, although there may be a fee under the freedom of information act.

We'll take your money and you'll like it seems to be the general approach. This has to stop.

So you posted this whilst I was writing up the answer to your question. Now that you read it do you still hold the above opinion?

Boombastic

Odysseus wrote: »

................
But with meetings no longer being paid for travel, staff have to decide whether they will attend a meeting. So staff who are needed are dropping out of meeting as they cannot afford the travel, in some cases it could be a 10 mile in others 50.
.............

Instead of travelling to meetings, The meetings should be done over skype or some other type of software and cut out all the travel expenses.