Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bus Eireann Strikes
Options
Comments
-
Reducing self-certified sick leave from 4 to a maximum of 2 days per annum, or reducing the first two hours of overtime in any day to be paid at 1.25 times and at 1.5 times thereafter, in a company that loses ~€11m pa can hardly be considered "prioritizing social values"! Because that is what this comes down to; unions refusing to accept Labour Court recommendations that would be considered quite good terms in the majority of other jobs. This is not a case of a union fighting to obtain basic standards and conditions, they are fighting to ignore reality in the belief that they are somehow more important than other workers.KyussBishop wrote: »That's not replying to anything in my post, that's repeating what you've already said; Bus Eireann is a public company, not a private for-profit one, and providing such subsidy to a private company, creates the situation described in my last post:KyussBishop wrote: »So that would not only be a privatization of profits, and socialization of losses, but would create moral hazard, where private industry receives a guaranteed subsidy no matter what the quality of their service.
No way do I want to see subsidies and profits, going into private executive pockets here; if we keep these services public, even if they are 'inefficient' (which more often just means, prioritizing social values over profit, which is what these services are for in the first place; monetarily inefficient, in order to be socially efficient), then at least the spent money and profits are going to public use or directly into workers pockets.
Privatization of these services, just provides a cash-grab and permanent rent-seeking opportunity for private investors, at a loss to the public (both monetarily and socially) and workers.
The only options available are not simply maintain the status quo or else "privatization of profits and socialization of losses". As I explained already, bus routes can be contracted out through competitive tendering without subsidising private companies, they would be providing a service which the public sector has priced itself out of. This would be a better situation, both monetarily and socially, than the taxpayer continuing to subsidise a lose making company with out of date work practices.0 -
Is privitising public services the anwser, just look at waste management for example...
Dublin City Council to stop cleaning streets where illegal dumping an issue
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-city-council-to-stop-cleaning-streets-where-illegal-dumping-an-issue-591014.html
This week Dublin City Councillors agreed to spend an extra €1.4million on waste management services to try to clean up the mess that they created by privatising the bin service.
http://maryfitzpatrick.blogspot.ie/2013/04/dublin-city-rubbish.html
now what will happen to our bus services0 -
It is off topic and perhaps reflects on my own poor understanding of the article, but how is illegal dumped rubbish the fault of the private operators?Is privitising public services the anwser, just look at waste management for example...
Dublin City Council to stop cleaning streets where illegal dumping an issue
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-city-council-to-stop-cleaning-streets-where-illegal-dumping-an-issue-591014.html0 -
Again, in the first paragraph you're not replying to anything I've said, just going off on a red herring, on a general public-sector union rant.Pete_Cavan wrote: »Reducing self-certified sick leave from 4 to a maximum of 2 days per annum, or reducing the first two hours of overtime in any day to be paid at 1.25 times and at 1.5 times thereafter, in a company that loses ~€11m pa can hardly be considered "prioritizing social values"! Because that is what this comes down to; unions refusing to accept Labour Court recommendations that would be considered quite good terms in the majority of other jobs. This is not a case of a union fighting to obtain basic standards and conditions, they are fighting to ignore reality in the belief that they are somehow more important than other workers.
The only options available are not simply maintain the status quo or else "privatization of profits and socialization of losses". As I explained already, bus routes can be contracted out through competitive tendering without subsidising private companies, they would be providing a service which the public sector has priced itself out of. This would be a better situation, both monetarily and socially, than the taxpayer continuing to subsidise a lose making company with out of date work practices.
Your 'competitive tendering' (i.e. bidding between bus operators, for the state to purchase their services) also does involves direct public subsides to the private operators, you said it right here:
This is precisely a socialization of losses on non-profitable bus routes, and is put in place to allow the private company to gain profits despite the unprofitability of those routes (thus a privatization of profits), and it puts in place the moral hazard, of subsidizing a private company who have a guaranteed public income, no matter what the quality or value of their service (all they have to do, is keep jacking-up fares enough to be more 'efficient').Pete Cavan wrote:All money from ticket sales goes to NTA who use this money (plus some subsidies most likely) to pay the private company for their services.
A public company by definition, can not be subsidized, because it is public money going to a public company (which Bus Eireann is, thus it is not 'subsidized'), providing a public service; subsidies get paid to private companies only.
If these private companies are so efficient, let them compete with Bus Eireann, without giving these private operators any public subsidies, and if they do provide a better service, they will become dominant (let 'the market' decide); what you want is to cripple the existing services, for private benefit (and not just that, but to subsidize them as well).0 -
If, say, a public company paid its workers 100k a year each to do a particular job, while a private company would pay 40k, can you not see how this is a subsidy? Just because a public company is providing a service does not mean they represent the best value to the taxpayer. If it was that easy, we could pay bus drivers a million quid a year each.KyussBishop wrote: »A public company by definition, can not be subsidized, because it is public money going to a public company (which Bus Eireann is, thus it is not 'subsidized'), providing a public service; subsidies get paid to private companies only.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is not a subsidy if they are paying a realistic price for the service, which is the point of competitive tendering. Not every payment from the state to a private company is a subsidy, is the money paid to a building contractor for building a school a subsidy, is money paid to an office supply company for envelopes used to post letters a subsidy? The government purchases goods and services off the private sector all of the time and for many different products and services, it has nothing to do with subsidies or "privatization of profits and socialization of losses. It should be done if it represents good value for money for the tax payer, we should not be expected to pay over the odds for a national bus service just because the unions dont want to face reality. If tendering routes as described results in lower costs than doing it all in house through a state owned company then this is what should happen.KyussBishop wrote: »Again, in the first paragraph you're not replying to anything I've said, just going off on a red herring, on a general public-sector union rant.
Your 'competitive tendering' (i.e. bidding between bus operators, for the state to purchase their services) also does involves direct public subsides to the private operators, you said it right here:
This is precisely a socialization of losses on non-profitable bus routes, and is put in place to allow the private company to gain profits despite the unprofitability of those routes (thus a privatization of profits), and it puts in place the moral hazard, of subsidizing a private company who have a guaranteed public income, no matter what the quality or value of their service (all they have to do, is keep jacking-up fares enough to be more 'efficient').
A public company by definition, can not be subsidized, because it is public money going to a public company (which Bus Eireann is, thus it is not 'subsidized'), providing a public service; subsidies get paid to private companies only.
If these private companies are so efficient, let them compete with Bus Eireann, without giving these private operators any public subsidies, and if they do provide a better service, they will become dominant (let 'the market' decide); what you want is to cripple the existing services, for private benefit (and not just that, but to subsidize them as well).
This is not "a general public-sector union rant", although claiming it is is a convenient way for you to avoid the issue.0 -
Wow that video of that woman crying after being forced to get off the GoBe bus is dynamite for the unions. They've lost already.0
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 13643
Sierra Oscar wrote: »There were no private operators willing to operate on the rural routes around my homeplace this morning. They may have no problem operating on the cash cow routes, but they are less eager to operate on the less profitable routes.
A subvention will still be needed to promote less profitable routes even if Bus Éireann go out of business. Anyone who thinks otherwise is misinformed.
But even as we stand there are towns with no regular bus services. So with the existing unprofitable routes, the question must be asked why those routes get subsidized while other people have to make their own way? I mean, if there are three houses at the end of a penninsula, is there a duty to ensure that they have a regular bus service? If not, at what point does a place deserve a bus service?
I also find it hard to believe that there is no third option. Couldn't there be a mini bus used instead if a full bus? Couldn't they be charged twice as much to make it up? Couldn't each townland make the choice for themselves to subsidise the bus themselves, paid for by local payments, rates or sponsorship by local villages?
I mean, we are long past the helpless days when only the government invested in infrastructure.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Linky? PM would do.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0513/391899-bus-eireann-strike/#video
It's the fourth video in there. They're really coming across as total scumbags imo0 -
You're trying to play semantic games with this, to muddy debate; by definition, a subsidy goes to private industry:If, say, a public company paid its workers 100k a year each to do a particular job, while a private company would pay 40k, can you not see how this is a subsidy? Just because a public company is providing a service does not mean they represent the best value to the taxpayer. If it was that easy, we could pay bus drivers a million quid a year each.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidya direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
...
Subsidy, subvention are both grants of money, especially governmental, to aid private undertakings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SubsidyThe most common definition of a subsidy refers to a payment made by the government to a producer.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp?ModPagespeed=noscriptA benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.
Bus Eireann is a state-owned company i.e. it is a part of the state; the state does not subsidize itself, because that contradicts the very definition of the word, and the only reason anyone would try to conflate the definition like that, is to play semantic games to try and muddy debate, to suit their own rhetoric/agenda.
It is really clear, that the intention behind trying to redefine the word 'subsidy' here, is to draw a fallacious comparison between public and private industry as if they were the same, and to promote wholesale privatization (not even just that, but with subsidies!), under the guise of 'competitiveness'.0 -
Eh, yes it is a subsidy; the only way for it not to be a subsidy, is for private companies to rely entirely upon profits generated from fares, whereas you want them to take fares and a payment from government.Pete_Cavan wrote: »It is not a subsidy if they are paying a realistic price for the service, which is the point of competitive tendering. Not every payment from the state to a private company is a subsidy, is the money paid to a building contractor for building a school a subsidy, is money paid to an office supply company for envelopes used to post letters a subsidy? The government purchases goods and services off the private sector all of the time and for many different products and services, it has nothing to do with subsidies or "privatization of profits and socialization of losses. It should be done if it represents good value for money for the tax payer, we should not be expected to pay over the odds for a national bus service just because the unions dont want to face reality. If tendering routes as described results in lower costs than doing it all in house through a state owned company then this is what should happen.
This is not "a general public-sector union rant", although claiming it is is a convenient way for you to avoid the issue.
Government money being spent to prop up a private company where it is unprofitable = subsidy.
Competitive tendering = private companies bidding against each other, to receive a subsidy from government.
This would not be government buying a few odd jobs off out of the private sector, this would be government paying for an entire industry (private business providing transport), which is effectively subsidizing that industry.
More attempts here, at trying to play ridiculous semantic games with the word 'subsidy', and trying to pretend something is not a subsidy, when it blindingly obviously is a subsidy.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Eh, yes it is a subsidy; the only way for it not to be a subsidy, is for private companies to rely entirely upon profits generated from fares, whereas you want them to take fares and a payment from government.
Government money being spent to prop up a private company where it is unprofitable = subsidy.
Competitive tendering = private companies bidding against each other, to receive a subsidy from government.
This would not be government buying a few odd jobs off out of the private sector, this would be government paying for an entire industry (private business providing transport), which is effectively subsidizing that industry.
More attempts here, at trying to play ridiculous semantic games with the word 'subsidy', and trying to pretend something is not a subsidy, when it blindingly obviously is a subsidy.
The point people are making is that for to run unprofitable routes a company would rely on money from the government. It doesn't matter if its Bus Eireann or another company. Bus Eireann couldn't run these routes without government support.
The argument is that a competitive tendering process would see less money been spend by the government to support unprofitable routes. Freeing up money to be used elsewhere in the public service. Yes private companies would make a profit but if they can do it with less money than Bus Eireann currently requires its a gain for the government.0 -
Yes, I agree that it is blindingly obvious what a subsidy is, but you are blinkered to it. In all of the definitions you linked, it does not say that subsidies are any payment from the state to the private sector. The government here buys many goods and services from the private sector every day but these are not subsidies because they are buying at the market price (Okay you can claim there are many things that skew the market price but that would be semantics).KyussBishop wrote: »Eh, yes it is a subsidy; the only way for it not to be a subsidy, is for private companies to rely entirely upon profits generated from fares, whereas you want them to take fares and a payment from government.
Government money being spent to prop up a private company where it is unprofitable = subsidy.
Competitive tendering = private companies bidding against each other, to receive a subsidy from government.
This would not be government buying a few odd jobs off out of the private sector, this would be government paying for an entire industry (private business providing transport), which is effectively subsidizing that industry.
More attempts here, at trying to play ridiculous semantic games with the word 'subsidy', and trying to pretend something is not a subsidy, when it blindingly obviously is a subsidy.
I do not want the private bus companies to take fares and a payment from government, I want the government to take the fares and use them to pay private companies for providing a bus, a driver and everything that goes with that (fuel, maintenance, etc.). It would be the government paying a company for providing a service, much like using agency staff which happens in many sectors of the state. It is NOT a subsidy! If bus routes were put out to tender, BE could submit a tender, they might win some routes because of the privileged market position the company has had over many years but their inability to reduce their costs would see them lose all business within a few years in a competitive environment.
Do you want the state to produce all the goods and services it consumes? Should we have a state printer cartridge company, producing ink and all cartridges for the various different printers its uses to avoid "subsidising" the private companies it currently buys from? This is a ridiculous conversation and is dragging the thread off topic.0 -
-
-
listermint wrote: »Ah thats right harassing the public of a bus theyve paid for. That gets you everywhere. Pack of scumbags tbh.
What alternative did they have, if they didn't strike the proposed cuts would've have been imposed on them:rolleyes:0 -
I don't think anyone really wants to shut down loss making routes but rather to change the model of service provision.If you shut down loss making routes, not only would you disproportionately affect the poor but you'd also no longer be running a public service
I.E. by means of a tender process, lowest bidder, could include a negative subsidy, e.g. bus operators pays for the license to run a profitable route and that money is ringfenced to provide subsidies for less profitable or loss-making routes.
I actually agree with this as its done elsewhere and I consider it to be a model of best practice.Until very recently busses from say Carrigaline drove through Douglas, passing city bus stops and refused to pick up passengers because they did not pick up at 'city stops' because they were 'country busses'.
I remember being absolutely infuriated by being refused entry to a bus that stopped at my stop en route to the city centre because it 'was not a city bus'. It was almost 80% empty and was stopping anyway to let passengers off.
For example, on the Metro North Railroad, which serves the Northern suburbs of New York City, about ~20 years ago some trains from Southern Connecticut began making stops at the Fordham station in the Bronx. But because these are invariably long distance trains, the stops are restricted: inbound to discharge passengers only, outbound to pick up passengers only.
Obviously some Fordhamites are not happy about this but the view taken elsewhere is that the train isn't meant to be a short haul subway type train and so those restrictions help the train do its job of concentrating on carrying people between the Northern suburbs and New York City.
It should be said that there are local trains running under a similar banner serving the same station and also a subway stop nearby also carring people to Grand Central.0 -
Whatever about the strike, this was bang out of order. Obviously the strikers have a right to strike and withdraw their services, but there was no right to interfere with the lawful business of others. The guards should have been called IMHO.Wow that video of that woman crying after being forced to get off the GoBe bus is dynamite for the unions. They've lost already.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bus Eireann is a publicly owned company, it is part of the state; private companies are not. Money going to Bus Eireann is not a subsidy (the state does not 'subsidize' itself), money going to a private company from the state, is a subsidy; these are two completely different situations.The point people are making is that for to run unprofitable routes a company would rely on money from the government. It doesn't matter if its Bus Eireann or another company. Bus Eireann couldn't run these routes without government support.
The argument is that a competitive tendering process would see less money been spend by the government to support unprofitable routes. Freeing up money to be used elsewhere in the public service. Yes private companies would make a profit but if they can do it with less money than Bus Eireann currently requires its a gain for the government.
People are trying to ignore my own points, to repeat their own particular framing of this debate (the framing I have countered repeatedly, several times now), which is in favour of privatization.
It is not money spent by government alone that matters, it is money spent by government and the public (e.g. in fares); it is very easy for a private company to require less money from government, by simply jacking up fares (something Bus Eireann could easily do, except they prioritize social values over profits), and with private companies being for-profit, not all of this money will go towards public purposes, but in lining executive pockets at the expense of society (with subsidies contributing to that too!).
It's what the public spends that matters (and the quality of service they get for their money), not only what the government spends.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »It is not money spent by government alone that matters, it is money spent by government and the public (e.g. in fares); it is very easy for a private company to require less money from government, by simply jacking up fares (something Bus Eireann could easily do, except they prioritize social values over profits), and with private companies being for-profit, not all of this money will go towards public purposes, but in lining executive pockets at the expense of society (with subsidies contributing to that too!).
It's what the public spends that matters (and the quality of service they get for their money), not only what the government spends.
I'm not disagreeing with the point you're making, but surely the public are paying it either way - if in fares it's the users paying, if from Govt funds to plug the operating deficit then it's all taxpayers (including those who never use a bus).0 -
Eh, yes, the very first definition linked states that, twice:Pete_Cavan wrote: »Yes, I agree that it is blindingly obvious what a subsidy is, but you are blinkered to it. In all of the definitions you linked, it does not say that subsidies are any payment from the state to the private sector.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidya direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
...
Subsidy, subvention are both grants of money, especially governmental, to aid private undertakings.
I suppose the state is now subsidizing government, the police, the legal system, the army etc.? No, because that's 1: not the definition of subsidy, and 2: makes any discussion about subsidies and their negative effects nonsensical (which I think is your aim here), because you just have to deliberately conflate it with spending on public services.
Again, you ignore everything said in the previous post, so you can repeat exactly what I've already addressed before; here is what I said previously:Pete_Cavan wrote: »The government here buys many goods and services from the private sector every day but these are not subsidies because they are buying at the market price (Okay you can claim there are many things that skew the market price but that would be semantics).
...
Do you want the state to produce all the goods and services it consumes? Should we have a state printer cartridge company, producing ink and all cartridges for the various different printers its uses to avoid "subsidising" the private companies it currently buys from? This is a ridiculous conversation and is dragging the thread off topic.
This would not be government buying a few odd jobs off out of the private sector, this would be government paying for an entire industry (private business providing transport), which is effectively subsidizing that industry.
Again, from your previous post:Pete_Cavan wrote: »I do not want the private bus companies to take fares and a payment from government, I want the government to take the fares and use them to pay private companies for providing a bus, a driver and everything that goes with that (fuel, maintenance, etc.). It would be the government paying a company for providing a service, much like using agency staff which happens in many sectors of the state. It is NOT a subsidy! If bus routes were put out to tender, BE could submit a tender, they might win some routes because of the privileged market position the company has had over many years but their inability to reduce their costs would see them lose all business within a few years in a competitive environment.
While the fares would be set by government, that still involves some subsidies, and what we have no control over then from private companies, is any reduction in quality of service; performance is judged solely on monetary value (who can provide the cheapest), not on quality or public acceptability of the services.Pete_Cavan wrote:All money from ticket sales goes to NTA who use this money (plus some subsidies most likely) to pay the private company for their services.
Since this pretty much hands over monopoly-access to unprofitable routes (since only one company can have the subsidies necessary to make it profitable), passengers are stuck with whatever service they are landed with, for the length of the contract, and there is no accountability to the public for the private company, as there would be with a public company.
Public companies do not exist to compete, they exist to provide services that prioritize social values, instead of monetary values (like a for-profit company does).0 -
I dont see why there is a need for the unprofitable routes. If they are being unprofitable then you need to look at either cost or demand. I pay more to live in a city and be close to college and facilities, not the ass end of nowhere and expect someone to provide a service to come pick me and 2 others up to take us into town.0
-
You clearly have no idea what a subsidy is. The state purchasing goods or services from the private sector is not a subsidy, it happens every day and is not done "at the expense of society". Perhaps you also think that we should set up a state company to produce paper in order to avoid "lining executive pockets" and "prioritize social values over profits" regardless of the price this state company produces paper at? Far from being at the expense of society, the state purchasing from the private sector reduces the states costs, allowing more money to be spent for societys benefit.KyussBishop wrote: »Bus Eireann is a publicly owned company, it is part of the state; private companies are not. Money going to Bus Eireann is not a subsidy (the state does not 'subsidize' itself), money going to a private company from the state, is a subsidy; these are two completely different situations.
People are trying to ignore my own points, to repeat their own particular framing of this debate (the framing I have countered repeatedly, several times now), which is in favour of privatization.
It is not money spent by government alone that matters, it is money spent by government and the public (e.g. in fares); it is very easy for a private company to require less money from government, by simply jacking up fares (something Bus Eireann could easily do, except they prioritize social values over profits), and with private companies being for-profit, not all of this money will go towards public purposes, but in lining executive pockets at the expense of society (with subsidies contributing to that too!).
It's what the public spends that matters (and the quality of service they get for their money), not only what the government spends.
If you actually read my posts you would see that what I suggested does not allow private bus companies to "simply jacking up fares" but no doubt you will also ignore this post and continue regurgitating the same nonsense. If you want to discuss the benefits of living in some crazy socialist state where everything consumed by the state must be produced by the state you can do it in another thread, it has no relevance here.0 -
Missed this earlier; when I say the public paying here, I include specifically the fares paid by the public users of the service too.barneystinson wrote: »I'm not disagreeing with the point you're making, but surely the public are paying it either way - if in fares it's the users paying, if from Govt funds to plug the operating deficit then it's all taxpayers (including those who never use a bus).0 -
You yourself have said it would provide a subsidy, which I have quoted in my previous post, and you are simply trying to muddy the definition of the word 'subsidy' to try and pretend, that what you propose would not be a subsidy.Pete_Cavan wrote: »You clearly have no idea what a subsidy is. The state purchasing goods or services from the private sector is not a subsidy, it happens every day and is not done "at the expense of society". Perhaps you also think that we should set up a state company to produce paper in order to avoid "lining executive pockets" and "prioritize social values over profits" regardless of the price this state company produces paper at? Far from being at the expense of society, the state purchasing from the private sector reduces the states costs, allowing more money to be spent for societys benefit.
If you actually read my posts you would see that what I suggested does not allow private bus companies to "simply jacking up fares" but no doubt you will also ignore this post and continue regurgitating the same nonsense. If you want to discuss the benefits of living in some crazy socialist state where everything consumed by the state must be produced by the state you can do it in another thread, it has no relevance here.
You also create the straw-man, to pretend I am saying government paying for any private purchase is a subsidy, which ignores that 1: I did not say that, and 2: This is government subsidizing an entire industry, which is on its face nowhere near comparable to buying individual goods.
You know perfectly well that you are trying to muddy debate here, and are being as obtuse as you can possibly manage over the definition of 'subsidy', for the sake of persisting with the same privatization rhetoric.
Again also, there would be (at least) these additional problems, even where fares are allocated to government; repeating:
While the fares would be set by government, that still involves some subsidies, and what we have no control over then from private companies, is any reduction in quality of service [thus setting in place conditions of moral hazard, where the company has a guaranteed income for the length of the contract, without respect to quality of service]; performance is judged solely on monetary value (who can provide the cheapest), not on quality or public acceptability of the services.
Since this pretty much hands over monopoly-access to unprofitable routes (since only one company can have the subsidies necessary to make it profitable), passengers are stuck with whatever service they are landed with, for the length of the contract, and there is no accountability to the public for the private company, as there would be with a public company.0 -
In economic terms, the basic goal of a subsidy is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Simply buying a service is not a subsidy. While there many be some government financing required to make up the difference between income generated and the cost of the service, at least the state would be paying private companies a realistic price reflecting the actual costs, unlike the current situation where BE loses are covered by the state regardless of service, work practices, etc.KyussBishop wrote: »You yourself have said it would provide a subsidy, which I have quoted in my previous post, and you are simply trying to muddy the definition of the word 'subsidy' to try and pretend, that what you propose would not be a subsidy.
You have been constantly claiming that using private bus companies services should not be an option because it would involve "subsidising" them, which is not acceptable. It is not a straw-man to extend this exact same theory to other areas of government spending. I am simply giving you examples of what happens already and how applying your rules is not practical. And the government would not be "subsidizing an entire industry", private bus companies do operate without state contracts, the industry exists already. Gas pipeline installation is carried out by private contractors on behalf of Bord Gais, should this be done inhouse, regardless of cost, in order to avoid "subsidizing an entire industry"?KyussBishop wrote: »You also create the straw-man, to pretend I am saying government paying for any private purchase is a subsidy, which ignores that 1: I did not say that, and 2: This is government subsidizing an entire industry, which is on its face nowhere near comparable to buying individual goods.
I have not been advocating privitisation, simply using the services of private companies, which the state does all of the time. I am not advocating giving private companies free reign to do what they want. State issues tender and set out the terms and level of service they wish to receive in the tender documents, private companies calculate the cost to them of providing that service and submit a bid, state selects the winner based on the award criteria it set out. This happens all of the time.KyussBishop wrote: »You know perfectly well that you are trying to muddy debate here, and are being as obtuse as you can possibly manage over the definition of 'subsidy', for the sake of persisting with the same privatization rhetoric.
Performance is not judged solely on monetary value. The quality of service (standard of buses, departure times, etc.) is set out in the contract and any breaches can result in damages or termination of contract. Today there are many private companies with long term state contracts spaning as long as 20 years (eg. DBO contracts for a wastewater treatment plant). The same claims regarding guaranteed income for the length of the contract, without respect to quality of service, could be made in these instances but there are causes in the contract to deal with this. Any drop in quality of service is punishable in accordance with the contract (and possibly other legislation). Most state tenders now use MEAT (Most Economically Advantagous Tender) to determine contract award, this usually includes other award criteria, not just lowest price.KyussBishop wrote: »Again also, there would be (at least) these additional problems, even where fares are allocated to government; repeating:
While the fares would be set by government, that still involves some subsidies, and what we have no control over then from private companies, is any reduction in quality of service [thus setting in place conditions of moral hazard, where the company has a guaranteed income for the length of the contract, without respect to quality of service]; performance is judged solely on monetary value (who can provide the cheapest), not on quality or public acceptability of the services.
Yes because there is full accountability with public companies. There is more accountability with private companies who have gone through a tender process and have a contract for a defined period of time than with a state company who are protected and operate regardless of cost of service.KyussBishop wrote: »Since this pretty much hands over monopoly-access to unprofitable routes (since only one company can have the subsidies necessary to make it profitable), passengers are stuck with whatever service they are landed with, for the length of the contract, and there is no accountability to the public for the private company, as there would be with a public company.0 -
No, that is an 'operating subsidy', it's not simply buying a service, it is a de-facto privatization of an entire industry, and subsidization of that.Pete_Cavan wrote: »In economic terms, the basic goal of a subsidy is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Simply buying a service is not a subsidy. While there many be some government financing required to make up the difference between income generated and the cost of the service, at least the state would be paying private companies a realistic price reflecting the actual costs, unlike the current situation where BE loses are covered by the state regardless of service, work practices, etc.
Most public transport is a loss-making enterprise, so of course the state will be covering that; you have the state covering it for private industry too.
Here for instance, is a good Wiki article documenting the effect of this kind of privatization and deregulation of bus services in the UK, and it describes the 'tendering' you tout, as precisely a subsidy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Britain
Particularly, where the article notes an initial decrease in costs, that was followed by an increase in subsidy costs over time; it also describes how such a system has led to decreasing services in outlying/nonprofitable areas, and a significant increase in fares in many areas, which is pretty much to be expected when you reprioritize monetary rather than social purposes, with public transport (that's why we use a public company, because it will prioritize social values, which is the whole point of a public bus service).
In general it leads to a whole host of issues and uncertainties and unanticipated cost/subsidy increases, where there is absolutely no public control over it anymore, because you've scrapped your public bus service and would have to expend enormous capital getting that back.
The one place public transport has maintained a decent growth in usage, has been in London where there was not such deregulation like in the rest of the country (where usage has fallen).
This is subsidized privatization, for the benefit of private industry, not in any way for the benefit of the public and especially not public transport users; wouldn't want to see anything like what was done in the UK, done here, as it shows a template for exactly what we don't want: mass-privatization with lots of problems with service, and not even any evidence of benefit from that, with the one place showing improvement over the years being the non-deregulated area of London.
Again, I would much rather a public bus service, where there is at least public control and accountability over how it is run, and where any 'inefficiencies' (which more often than not are prioritization of social purposes, not money) go into worker i.e. consumer pockets, where it is more likely to be spent back into the economy, than it would be going into executive pockets in a private company.
Yes it is a straw-man, its blindingly obvious to anyone here, that paying private bus operators to run unprofitable routes is a subsidy, and that you want to subsidize an entire industry like this (that private operators already exist, does not change this: you would be spinning off public bus services, and creating a huge subsidized private industry out of them); this is not like saying government buying print cartridges is a subsidy, and it's not like a private Bord Gais contractor doing a once-off installation job.Pete_Cavan wrote: »You have been constantly claiming that using private bus companies services should not be an option because it would involve "subsidising" them, which is not acceptable. It is not a straw-man to extend this exact same theory to other areas of government spending. I am simply giving you examples of what happens already and how applying your rules is not practical. And the government would not be "subsidizing an entire industry", private bus companies do operate without state contracts, the industry exists already. Gas pipeline installation is carried out by private contractors on behalf of Bord Gais, should this be done inhouse, regardless of cost, in order to avoid "subsidizing an entire industry"?
I mean that's totally facetious, it is obvious they are nothing like a regular, huge countrywide permanent service, an entire industry of providing public transport.
Yes you are advocating privatization, what do you think will happen to Bus Eireann in all of this? All that has to be done to destroy Bus Eireann, is have private bus companies buy up all the routes, using private investor money to allow temporary running at a loss (to make buying up routes manageable) until Bus Eireann has no work left and packs up (and is subsequently sold off at a pittance to the very private industry undercutting it), then all you have left is private industry.Pete_Cavan wrote: »I have not been advocating privitisation, simply using the services of private companies, which the state does all of the time. I am not advocating giving private companies free reign to do what they want. State issues tender and set out the terms and level of service they wish to receive in the tender documents, private companies calculate the cost to them of providing that service and submit a bid, state selects the winner based on the award criteria it set out. This happens all of the time.
Absolutely no way that's not going to lead to total privatization, and once you only have private bus services left, there's not a chance they are going to be nearly as accountable to government, as a public company is.
With a private company, yes it is, they are for-profit and judge the service entirely on monetary value, and the quality and usage drops in the UK through similar privatization, speak against your claims here.Pete_Cavan wrote: »Performance is not judged solely on monetary value. The quality of service (standard of buses, departure times, etc.) is set out in the contract and any breaches can result in damages or termination of contract. Today there are many private companies with long term state contracts spaning as long as 20 years (eg. DBO contracts for a wastewater treatment plant). The same claims regarding guaranteed income for the length of the contract, without respect to quality of service, could be made in these instances but there are causes in the contract to deal with this. Any drop in quality of service is punishable in accordance with the contract (and possibly other legislation). Most state tenders now use MEAT (Most Economically Advantagous Tender) to determine contract award, this usually includes other award criteria, not just lowest price.
Again, the UK experiences of similar schemes speak the opposite of this, with the one service retaining quality and numbers in usage, being London, which was not subject to the mass privatization like the rest of the country.Pete_Cavan wrote: »Yes because there is full accountability with public companies. There is more accountability with private companies who have gone through a tender process and have a contract for a defined period of time than with a state company who are protected and operate regardless of cost of service.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement