Michael Martin proposes 600 job losses in Cork

sozbox

What do fellow Cork people think of this? Know anyone working in Abtran or IW that would be affected?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-water-abolition-would-cost-state-up-to-7bn-1.2556073

Manach

Better headline tag might be of a Cork TD saving taxpayers' money by abolishing a white water elephant ...

overmantle

While I'm grateful to have a job, I work long hours, in a stressful position. Like many others, I pay ALL of the various charges and deductions, including water charges. During the period of austerity, it has not been easy, where I have found my job becoming all the more demanding, working longer hours, for significantly less money.

Like many others, I have been prepared to make significant sacrifices, for the benefit of our country and for the recovery of our economy. It has been difficult to see some others saying 'No' to absolutely everything, seemingly unwilling to pay for anything, while others seem to be caught for every charge, every levy, every bill. I don't smoke, I drink very little, I don't have sky sports etc. etc.. Personally, I would have preferred not to have to pay water charges but I realise that to have a properly treated, safe water supply, this costs money.

There has been significant investment in Irish Water, which will hopefully benefit us all. Having said that, if by any chance water charges are reversed, I will expect that those who made the sacrifice and paid the charges should, not only be reimbursed but also rewarded, in some way, for being the ones willing to pay.

mohawk

Manach wrote: »

Better headline tag might be of a Cork TD saving taxpayers' money by abolishing a white water elephant ...

It will cost money to abolish Irish Water.

Jimmy Bottles

Manach wrote: »

Better headline tag might be of a Cork TD saving taxpayers' money by abolishing a white water elephant ...

500m cost which will achieve nothing and 600 job losses in Cork alone.

I suspect this is the best tagline for the cork city form

sozbox

Hope this doesn't become a debate on water charges but rather a discussion on the proposed job losses in Cork.

I know people who are very worried about being able to provide for their families tonight and I think it's disgusting for Martin to use these jobs as political fodder

screamer

There's people all over the country tonight worried about providing for their families due to impending hour or job cuts you just don't hear about it as it's not enough people to make headlines. Business is business and that's the bottom line. Only civil servants have the comfort of jobs for life. If abolishing IW makes financial sense it will be done though I wouldn't hold my breath on it being abolished. It's a sunken cost and a revenue stream for the government.

screamer

There's people all over the country tonight worried about providing for their families due to impending hour or job cuts you just don't hear about it as it's not enough people to make headlines. Business is business and that's the bottom line. Only civil servants have the comfort of jobs for life. If abolishing IW makes financial sense it will be done though I wouldn't hold my breath on it being abolished. It's a sunken cost and a revenue stream for the government.

sozbox

screamer wrote: »

There's people all over the country tonight worried about providing for their families due to impending hour or job cuts you just don't hear about it as it's not enough people to make headlines. Business is business and that's the bottom line. Only civil servants have the comfort of jobs for life. If abolishing IW makes financial sense it will be done though I wouldn't hold my breath on it being abolished. It's a sunken cost and a revenue stream for the government.

IW staff aren't civil servants and the staff in Abtran are definitely not civil servants. I don't think it's right for Martin to play with people's livelihood like this.

Manach

mohawk wrote: »

It will cost money to abolish Irish Water.

There is always somewhat an air of skeptism over monetary figures that interested bodies bandy about but even taken at face value does it not raise alarm bells over the financial controls, so begs the question how much more it would cost to keep it going.
It is always unfortunate about job losses, but the money free backed into the economic system is more likely to boost economic activity than being funnelled into de facto government coffers.

mcko

Shut it down, straw that broke the camels back pay enough tax every week and not paying more for water.

votecounts

Micheal Martin doesn't care about the workers, hell he'd sell out his own mother for power.
Going to be a lot of anger from people who paid and all this will go towards irish water bosses pensions

blackplum123

votecounts wrote: »

Micheal Martin doesn't care about the workers, hell he'd sell out his own mother for power.
Going to be a lot of anger from people who paid and all this will go towards irish water bosses pensions

The people that paid also got their 100 euro grant . so they paid very little in total.

I see Fat phil was keep out of the scene in the last few weeks , They knew the whole thing was a fluck up.

sozbox

mcko wrote: »

Shut it down, straw that broke the camels back pay enough tax every week and not paying more for water.

You'll pay more tax if water costs are back on the books.

votecounts

blackplum123 wrote: »

The people that paid also got their 100 euro grant . so they paid very little in total.

I see Fat phil was keep out of the scene in the last few weeks , They knew the whole thing was a fluck up.

Agreed, but no one likes parting with money when there is no need regardless of the amount

blackplum123

sozbox wrote: »

You'll pay more tax if water costs are back on the books.

looking at your past posts you are a Fine Gaeler ,.through and through.Id say the wake up call you got in the last few days was shocking

mikeym

As I said before the government were robbing Peter (taxpayer) to Pay Paul(Irish water).

I have spoken out of Fine Gaels dismal handling of Irish Water and the scaremongering and false threats such as we will cut off your water to a trickle.

And I was told it wasnt an electorial issue by one other member of boards.

Well Well Well.

I never payed my water bills and until there is a fair system put in place I wont be signing up.

As for the Abtran staff, I would hate to see staff get laid off and they are not on huge salaries but Abtran have a high turnover of staff and are not the best company to work for.

josip

sozbox wrote: »

You'll pay more tax if water costs are back on the books.

Yes, but only the tax payers will pay for it then.
Which will suit many of those who object to water charges.

sozbox

mikeym wrote: »

As I said before the government were robbing Peter (taxpayer) to Pay Paul(Irish water).

I have spoken out of Fine Gaels dismal handling of Irish Water and the scaremongering and false threats such as we will cut off your water to a trickle.

And I was told it wasnt an electorial issue by one other member of boards.

Well Well Well.

I never payed my water bills and until there is a fair system put in place I wont be signing up.

As for the Abtran staff, I would hate to see staff get laid off and they are not on huge salaries but Abtran have a high turnover of staff and are not the best company to work for.

However bad you think Abtran are it's surely better than the dole? We still have 8.5% unemployment so they may not get work easily

sozbox

blackplum123 wrote: »

looking at your past posts you are a Fine Gaeler ,.through and through.Id say the wake up call you got in the last few days was shocking

I am, absolutely, but if Coveney was suggesting the same I'd be just as critical.
People losing their jobs should be above politics, that's the whole point of my thread.

pwurple

blackplum123 wrote: »

The people that paid also got their 100 euro grant . so they paid very little in total.

I've paid 325 so far because i have no meter installed. Is that very little?

mikeym

sozbox wrote: »

I am, absolutely, but if Coveney was suggesting the same I'd be just as critical.
People losing their jobs should be above politics, that's the whole point of my thread.

But Coveney reignited the whole debate last night.

You can thank Mr.Coveney.

Dont listen to the scaremongering instead of paying the water bill people will have extra money in there pockets.

We were paying for water services through our taxes all along.

josip

mikeym wrote: »

...
We were paying for water services through our taxes all along.

Incorrect, water services were funded by rates from businesses until the introduction of the LPT.

Roger Hassenforder

josip wrote: »

Incorrect, water services were funded by rates from businesses until the introduction of the LPT.

Incorrect
Water services were funded from the general tax pot. Non domestic customers also paid water charges.

Roger Hassenforder

josip wrote: »

Yes, but only the tax payers will pay for it then.
Which will suit many of those who object to water charges.

Nonsense
There are other revenue income streams to the exchequer e.g VAT, VRT etc. All went into the tax pot.

the beer revolu

If IW is abolished, who will run and continue to invest in our water system? Give it back to the County Councils? Cause the system ran brilliantly with them...... right?

This is really cynical, populist politics from Martin. I think he's looking at the next election.

screamer

Double post

screamer

sozbox wrote: »

screamer wrote: »

There's people all over the country tonight worried about providing for their families due to impending hour or job cuts you just don't hear about it as it's not enough people to make headlines. Business is business and that's the bottom line. Only civil servants have the comfort of jobs for life. If abolishing IW makes financial sense it will be done though I wouldn't hold my breath on it being abolished. It's a sunken cost and a revenue stream for the government.

IW staff aren't civil servants and the staff in Abtran are definitely not civil servants.

exactly as private company workers they are just as open to job cuts as anyone else in the private sector.......So I don't see the reason for moaning tbh why should IW staff be protected from job cuts more than any other private sector employer working in a company that is not commercially viable ?

roundymac

Irish Water has to stay in whatever form, no matter who is funding it.

sozbox

screamer wrote: »

exactly as private company workers they are just as open to job cuts as anyone else in the private sector.......So I don't see the reason for moaning tbh why should IW staff be protected from job cuts more than any other private sector employer working in a company that is not commercially viable ?

I'm not saying that I'm saying that it's not right for Martin to use jobs as political football.

It's a commercial semi state so not correct to equate with a private company, government has no say in the running of a private company.

Martin is a cynical populist who is unnecessarily playing politics with people's jobs.

We tried the LA model for 90 years, didn't work. Time to give the single utility model a shot and stop the political interference.

screamer

sozbox wrote: »

I'm not saying that I'm saying that it's not right for Martin to use jobs as political football.

It's a commercial semi state so not correct to equate with a private company, government has no say in the running of a private company.

Martin is a cynical populist who is unnecessarily playing politics with people's jobs.

We tried the LA model for 90 years, didn't work. Time to give the single utility model a shot and stop the political interference.

Could be Enda Kenny abolishing it yet...... does that make it any more palatable?

sozbox

screamer wrote: »

Could be Enda Kenny abolishing it yet...... does that make it any more palatable?

Of course not and I would no longer support FG in that case. Water isn't an issue for FG voters so abolishing it would only lose Kenny support. He would gain nothing
We would all lose actually.

Corholio

overmantle wrote: »

While I'm grateful to have a job, I work long hours, in a stressful position. Like many others, I pay ALL of the various charges and deductions, including water charges. During the period of austerity, it has not been easy, where I have found my job becoming all the more demanding, working longer hours, for significantly less money.

Like many others, I have been prepared to make significant sacrifices, for the benefit of our country and for the recovery of our economy. It has been difficult to see some others saying 'No' to absolutely everything, seemingly unwilling to pay for anything, while others seem to be caught for every charge, every levy, every bill. I don't smoke, I drink very little, I don't have sky sports etc. etc.. Personally, I would have preferred not to have to pay water charges but I realise that to have a properly treated, safe water supply, this costs money.

There has been significant investment in Irish Water, which will hopefully benefit us all. Having said that, if by any chance water charges are reversed, I will expect that those who made the sacrifice and paid the charges should, not only be reimbursed but also rewarded, in some way, for being the ones willing to pay.

That's not what was happening though now was it. It wasn't the extremes of 'anything' and 'everything' that always gets bandied around individual protests. Fair play for paying but don't sit on the high horse about it. The properly treated, safe water supply is not where the money has or would have been going into for the near future. People would not have been so against it had they showed the necessity of having the 'treated, safe' water supply rather than going through all the controversies they did and telling people you must pay for water, nothing is free etc etc. I'd be in favour of reimbursement, as unlikely as that is, but I don't know why you'd want to be 'rewarded'.

FrStone

pwurple wrote: »

I've paid 325 so far because i have no meter installed. Is that very little?

So you've paid for 15 months of water then. €21.67 a month is grand value for the provision of water and the disposal of your waste water. That's not taking into account that you really only paid €225 when you include the water conservation grant.

Going Forward

sozbox wrote: »

What do fellow Cork people think of this? Know anyone working in Abtran or IW that would be affected?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-water-abolition-would-cost-state-up-to-7bn-1.2556073

I find it very difficult to believe that 400 sustainable jobs were created out of thin air in the first place, based solely on answering phones on behalf of Irish Water for the foreseeable future.

The article actually says that "About 400 people at Abtran’s Cork facility are involved in providing outsourced customer services to Irish Water."

How involved I don't know, but it's going to be taking up less of their time as time goes by regardless of anything happening right now.

Automated voice services are the way forward, real "people" are, in these situations, something of a novelty, but useful for portraying a "personal touch", a factor which is seen as lending credibility and was important during the attempted phasing in of water charges.

Interesting that for most other efficient utilities, the last thing they'd want is to have to pay money so that a "customer" can talk about the weather to someone in a call centre.

But let's go on a guilt trip about it anyway.

FrStone

Going Forward wrote: »

I find it very difficult to believe that 400 sustainable jobs were created out of thin air in the first place, based solely on answering phones on behalf of Irish Water for the foreseeable future.

The article actually says that "About 400 people at Abtran’s Cork facility are involved in providing outsourced customer services to Irish Water."

How involved I don't know, but it's going to be taking up less of their time as time goes by regardless of anything happening right now.

Automated voice services are the way forward, real "people" are, in these situations, something of a novelty, but useful for portraying a "personal touch", a factor which is seen as lending credibility and was important during the attempted phasing in of water charges.

Interesting that for most other efficient utilities, the last thing they'd want is to have to pay money so that a "customer" can talk about the weather to someone in a call centre.

But let's go on a guilt trip about it anyway.

Have you ever rang Irish water? You go through ages of automated machines before being put on hold and getting to speak with someone.

However, you are probably correct in saying 400 is over stated.

flutered

screamer wrote: »

Could be Enda Kenny abolishing it yet...... does that make it any more palatable?

the la's were not going so bad until 2011, when the funding for waters ervices was stopped, along with other funding, rool on a little while until the pension fund was raided to help set up iw, when this was not sufficent they were gifted with the lpt, between bad management, schite consultancys, bonuses for doing nothing, top of the range wages perks etc, plus the fact we were told it would take 50 years to get a proper service up and running, add on siteserv, water meters bought from a warehouse in germany, where they were been stored as faulty, with no paper trail, by d.c.c. they ended up with siteserv, again no paper trail, they were tested by driving a car on top of them to see would they crack, had not the la's a perfect billing systm set up, a data privacy rule breached my an inept minister hidden in a budget byline

valoren

Private route has been an utter failure.
Make it a publicly traded utilities company.
Launch an IPO and get it listed on the london and irish stock exchanges.
Get it listed on these markets to raise the necessary capital.
Let anybody invest in the company.
Allow people the opportunity to own the company and allow them the subsequent right to vote in a Board of Directors
who will hire competent management.
Get the government to apply to the EU for capital investment for Irish Water.

Ludo

valoren wrote: »

Private route has been an utter failure.
Make it a publicly traded utilities company.
Launch an IPO and get it listed on the london and irish stock exchanges.
Get it listed on these markets to raise the necessary capital.
Let anybody invest in the company.
Allow people the opportunity to own the company and allow them the subsequent right to vote in a Board of Directors
who will hire competent management.
Get the government to apply to the EU for capital investment for Irish Water.

**** no. That would be the worst possible thing to do.

mikeym

Privatisation would be the worse possible option.

josip

mikeym wrote: »

Privatisation would be the worse possible option.

Yes, it will be asset stripped until there's nothing left except a great stinking pile of debt.
Think Eircom.

overmantle

Corholio wrote: »

That's not what was happening though now was it. It wasn't the extremes of 'anything' and 'everything' that always gets bandied around individual protests. Fair play for paying but don't sit on the high horse about it. The properly treated, safe water supply is not where the money has or would have been going into for the near future. People would not have been so against it had they showed the necessity of having the 'treated, safe' water supply rather than going through all the controversies they did and telling people you must pay for water, nothing is free etc etc. I'd be in favour of reimbursement, as unlikely as that is, but I don't know why you'd want to be 'rewarded'.

I'm certainly not on any high horse, I can assure you. I rarely post here and didn't check in, since I last posted a few days ago.

The recent election campaign, however, brought into focus, those who appear to be unwilling to pay for anything (I'm not just talking about water) and yet expect everything to be landed on a plate for them.

I note that to date, your comments have not attracted any 'thanks', while the original comments I made have attracted the 'thanks' of 24 posters, none of whom are known to me. They can't all be wrong, surely.