Irish Water pushing ahead with privatisation of Water Infrastructure on the DL?

stampydmonkey

unit 1 wrote: »

The way IW will run the service in the future is not the exact same thing as the way the la's ran it in the past, apples and oranges really. Employing contractors to run, repair, construct, design water services is not privatisation.
However if anybody thinks coco staff are, ahem, problematical and expensive, then wait and see what private contractors will be like when IW becomes dependant on them to the point that they will capture them.
The only way to reign in private contractors is ruthless oversight, genuine competition, and a certain amount of in house "redundant" expertise to be able to see the wood from the trees.
In Ireland we are very poor at oversight (banks, fire regulations) or competition in a relatively niche markets (supply of water services,pharmacies etc), which leaves the last option as probably the best interim bulwark against raparacious pricing by private companies whose only interest is in charging as much as possible at every given opportunity, (I know because I work in water services)

Name a large water or wastewater project designed, managed and constructed entirely by LA staff in the last 5 years?

gerryirl

stampydmonkey wrote: »

Name a large water or wastewater project designed, managed and constructed entirely by LA staff in the last 5 years?

Ted I hate to break the bad news to you but The LA used consultants for this work and guess what IW are doing the very same thing , no different. It will be ran slightly different but the "clowns " in the van that fixes you up when you have no water will still be the very same "clowns" fixing you up when IW are in full control.
Its branding really but if you feel happier with the same "clown" in an IW van fixing you up as apposed to driving a LA van then happy for you.
Its a bit like taking a smarty when you have a pain in your head but someone told you it was a Panandol

I'll get my coat

stampydmonkey

gerryirl wrote: »

Ted I hate to break the bad news to you but The LA used consultants for this work and guess what IW are doing the very same thing , no different. It will be ran slightly different but the "clowns " in the van that fixes you up when you have no water will still be the very same "clowns" fixing you up when IW are in full control.
Its branding really but if you feel happier with the same "clown" in an IW van fixing you up as apposed to driving a LA van then happy for you.
Its a bit like taking a smarty when you have a pain in your head but someone told you it was a Panandol

I'll get my coat

Ah ur getting mixed up there yourself Ted. Am fully aware how many consultants and contractors are used by both IW and LA's. As for whether id like a private contractor or a few lads from the local council yard out, as it is at the minute, ill let you guess who'll get the job done quicker...that is as long as the council has recorded where the pipe is in the first place. ...no wait, johnny knows what was done there a few years ago...give him a shout

blackcard

stampydmonkey wrote: »

Rick Shaw wrote: »

A slimmed down, more efficient and effective company

are you saying the councils are more efficient and EFFECTIVE than IW. They still have an SLA yet no longer answer queries directly. This is not IW enforced but their decision. Excellent work ethic there.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

similar to the highly successful streamlined NRA.

the same organisation that uses consultants to design all large projects but keeps the RDOs (who are council staff scratching their holes or golfing) to "manage" the consultants, on top of their own TII staff... Yeah very efficient and cost effective. Nevermind paying PPP companies a fee if tolls dont meet what the PPPs expected them to make. Great idea!

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Even Ervia themselves admit they failed in their objectives.

show me where they "admit" this

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Fault or problem with your water supply? Call up Irish Waters helpline (Abtran big winners of that gig) who then direct you to call your L.A. (who you always called anyway) and inform them of the problem.

see above. Councils not adhering to the SLA they signed up to.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Out pops the lads in the council van (same lads who always did) to fix your problem. (After all, they're the lads with the knowledge of the infrastructure)

not for much longer thank god. And even "back in the day" the council hired in contractors to carry out this work. No change so. In addition the only reason most of these clowns have a job is because they didnt record the repairs or locations of the mains they installed.... What... Like a proper effective department would do. Is that IWs fault... No but they are sorting it out... For the first time.

....will reply to the rest at some stage

There is so much wrong with this post it is hard to know where to start. Protocols state that queries in relation to public water supplies are to be directed to Irish Water. Hard to take you seriously as you haven't a clue what you ate talking about.

gerryirl

stampydmonkey wrote: »

Ah ur getting mixed up there yourself Ted. Am fully aware how many consultants and contractors are used by both IW and LA's. As for whether id like a private contractor or a few lads from the local council yard out, as it is at the minute, ill let you guess who'll get the job done quicker...that is as long as the council has recorded where the pipe is in the first place. ...no wait, johnny knows what was done there a few years ago...give him a shout

lol.. and how do you think IW know where all the pipes are. They do have there own mapping system but you'll never guess, it was Johnny from the the council that gave them the information to put on the mapping system in the first place
It's a bit like the chicken and the egg question.

stampydmonkey

blackcard wrote: »

There is so much wrong with this post it is hard to know where to start. Protocols state that queries in relation to public water supplies are to be directed to Irish Water. Hard to take you seriously as you haven't a clue what you ate talking about.

Since bout May June of this year but theyve been pawning off queries for well over a year.

blackcard

stampydmonkey wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

There is so much wrong with this post it is hard to know where to start. Protocols state that queries in relation to public water supplies are to be directed to Irish Water. Hard to take you seriously as you haven't a clue what you ate talking about.

Since bout May June of this year but theyve been pawning off queries for well over a year.

Nonsense. The protocol has been in place since 2014.

gerryirl

Yes all calls are meant to go to IW but in reality people got fed up an long ago and I'd say only 50% are going that route. When the change does come it will be 100% .esb went the same no such thing as ringing someone you know to get something fixed all through call centre now.IW will be the same

blackcard

All I am saying is that Stampydonkey seems to think Councils are at fault for following Irish Water Protocols.

gerryirl

No your right blackcard

Rumpy Pumpy

Lots of drivel gets spouted about the creation of Irish Water. A semi-state is the only way to run a critical piece of national infrastructure. And that semi-state body needs to be able to charge for the supply and removal of water, so it can improve the infrastructure.

I've yet to see a cohesive argument against such an idea. Most of it seems to be wrapped up in incoherent rants about the 'gubberment', Denis O'Brien, and all those other malcontent ideas about dark forces acting against the will of the Plain People of Ireland.

wordofwarning

gerryirl wrote: »

Ted I hate to break the bad news to you but The LA used consultants for this work and guess what IW are doing the very same thing , no different. It will be ran slightly different but the "clowns " in the van that fixes you up when you have no water will still be the very same "clowns" fixing you up when IW are in full control.
Its branding really but if you feel happier with the same "clown" in an IW van fixing you up as apposed to driving a LA van then happy for you.
Its a bit like taking a smarty when you have a pain in your head but someone told you it was a Panandol

I'll get my coat

The difference between the council and a private contractor doing work is productivity. A private contractor only gets paid for what they do. If there is 20 lads working on a project, the council is being billed for 20 lads. If the council was doing that project, there would be 60 lads and 20 working.

DCC subcontracted out their footpaths etc as they no longer had to pay for a ton of council doing **** all. Greyhound basically ended up firing all the former DCC workers who collected the bins, as there productivity was horrific and had massive levels of absenteeism.

People need to wrap their head around the fact, that if LAs were so amazing at managing the water network in the first place. Why did we need IW set up? Because most of the council workers were useless and not a fan of working.

It is not about branding. It is about finding workers, who will actually work...

Hotblack Desiato

Rick Shaw wrote: »

If you missed the public anger at the overstaffing within the quango, including from within these very forums, perhaps you need to comeback after some research on the subject?

I seem to have missed the calls from the far left, who orchestrated these protests, for 1500 public sector redundancies.

Roger Hassenforder

wordofwarning wrote: »

Why did we need IW set up? Because most of the council workers were useless and not a fan of working.

For a moment I thought you were going to tell us...
Alas...

end of the road

wordofwarning wrote: »

The difference between the council and a private contractor doing work is productivity. A private contractor only gets paid for what they do. If there is 20 lads working on a project, the council is being billed for 20 lads. If the council was doing that project, there would be 60 lads and 20 working.

DCC subcontracted out their footpaths etc as they no longer had to pay for a ton of council doing **** all. Greyhound basically ended up firing all the former DCC workers who collected the bins, as there productivity was horrific and had massive levels of absenteeism.

People need to wrap their head around the fact, that if LAs were so amazing at managing the water network in the first place. Why did we need IW set up? Because most of the council workers were useless and not a fan of working.

It is not about branding. It is about finding workers, who will actually work...

productivity will be no different whoever does it, as fixing a pipe is fixing a pipe. it can't be done any faster/quicker then it is done. the council are billed for the actual cost, not the mythical cost you state. the days of councils being billed for 20 people died decades ago.
the filth that is Greyhound fired all the former DCC workers because they were paid well and the company wanted to pay the bottom wage they could. the productivity of the former dcc workers was fine and absenteeism levels were within the norms of all other companies.
we needed IW set up to provide jobs for the boys at the top level of the company. 99% of the council workers were not useless and did exactly what they were paid for. your lies about these people are absolutely disgusting and sickening. you should be ashamed of yourself coming out with blatent lies about people just because they are or were public service workers.
workers who will actually work currently exist and always have in the distribution of water.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

productivity will be no different whoever does it, as fixing a pipe is fixing a pipe. it can't be done any faster/quicker then it is done. the council are billed for the actual cost, not the mythical cost you state. the days of councils being billed for 20 people died decades ago.
the filth that is Greyhound fired all the former DCC workers because they were paid well and the company wanted to pay the bottom wage they could. the productivity of the former dcc workers was fine and absenteeism levels were within the norms of all other companies.
we needed IW set up to provide jobs for the boys at the top level of the company. 99% of the council workers were not useless and did exactly what they were paid for. your lies about these people are absolutely disgusting and sickening. you should be ashamed of yourself coming out with blatent lies about people just because they are or were public service workers.
workers who will actually work currently exist and always have in the distribution of water.

I know I’m only one case, but for years we had a recurring leak on our road. The LA would come out and “fix” the leak only for it to come back again in the exact same place. Along comes Irish Water, late one evening, a time when LA workers would be heading for home. The leak was fixed in an hour and has remained fixed. Which method was the most cost affective? IMO IW wins hands down.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Deleted User wrote: »

I know I’m only one case, but for years we had a recurring leak on our road. The LA would come out and “fix” the leak only for it to come back again in the exact same place. Along comes Irish Water, late one evening, a time when LA workers would be heading for home. The leak was fixed in an hour and has remained fixed. Which method was the most cost affective? IMO IW wins hands down.

And that example is typical of many cases around the country.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know I’m only one case, but for years we had a recurring leak on our road. The LA would come out and “fix” the leak only for it to come back again in the exact same place. Along comes Irish Water, late one evening, a time when LA workers would be heading for home. The leak was fixed in an hour and has remained fixed. Which method was the most cost affective? IMO IW wins hands down.

Interesting as Irish Water has no operational staff...(>700 office staff however in addition to all the LA staff still under the SLAs)

Vaughn Skinny Hurricane

Vaughn Skinny Hurricane wrote: »

And that example is typical of many cases around the country.

No doubt there’ll be some on pouring scorn on my post. So what if it was a contractor and not an IW employee, fact is the problem was fixed once IW took over.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No doubt there’ll be some on pouring scorn on my post. So what if it was a contractor and not an IW employee, fact is the problem was fixed once IW took over.

You've been banging on about that leak years now!

Nettle Soup

Irish Water was setup for privatisation - it was always the plan. It boggles me how people did not see that. The protesters did a huge service to the state by not allowing fiends like Hogan and Tierney get away with it.

Nettle Soup

A good read

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-water-charges-an-autopsy-1.2698412

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You've been banging on about that leak years now!

I have indeed. It proves the point that relying on LAs to sort the problem with the broken water infrastructure was money down the drain.

gerryirl

With the attitude some people have on here it's a pity the water charges were stopped. General taxation will pay for it now. We have been paying for water for over 30 years and dam glad to have it but now people like me will pay for it twice thanks to all those that didn't want to pay for it. If people think that IW will be valve for money or more efficient compared to LA then you don't know what your talking about in terms of figures. Yes I'm sure like any business private or public there are weak employees but the general perception seems to be if there is a few poor performing then there all poor. As I said previous I worked in the private sector too and there were plenty of poor performing employees also.

Rubberchikken

Drip feed information out and the public won't even notice when it's finally done right in front of them.
Bit like the frog in water analogy.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have indeed. It proves the point that relying on LAs to sort the problem with the broken water infrastructure was money down the drain.

Youre not really sure how water services were funded are you?

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Youre not really sure how water services were funded are you?

Er, general taxation?

Now, explain to me how roughly 10 attempts to fix one leak is cheaper than one successful one?

mada999

Deleted User wrote: »

In the name of Jazus, who would buy Irish water? It’d cost more than it’d ever make to upgrade the infrastructure. Murphy and Co have moved on to their latest pet cause - ghettos for the homeless and abortions for all. Courtesy of the taxpayer, of course.

no one at the moment.. but they are waiting until the taxpayers upgrade the infrastructure and then somone will swoop in an buy it.. max 10 years imo..

Roger Hassenforder

Deleted User wrote: »

Er, general taxation?

Now, explain to me how roughly 10 attempts to fix one leak is cheaper than one successful one?

I seriously doubt there was 10 attempts to fix one leak.
now if you said there were 10 attempts at fixing leaks in the same pipe, it would make sense.
You'll be aware that fiixing a hole in a pressurized pipe, merely causes the pressure to burst the next weakest place...
Now was a length of pipe replaced?

(I suspect the answer is yes. and seeing as pipe replacement/mains rehabilitation comes out of capital investment, which is centrally funded (i.e. the money has to be approved by DOE) you've experienced first hand how water services were ran into the ground over the years preceding IW, and bought a lovely pup for yourself as you've fallen for the spin hook line and sinker)

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I seriously doubt there was 10 attempts to fix one leak.
now if you said there were 10 attempts at fixing leaks in the same pipe, it would make sense.
You'll be aware that fiixing a hole in a pressurized pipe, merely casues the pressure to burst the next weakest place...but replaceing the pipe...
Now was a length of pipe replaced?

(I suspect the answer is yes. and seeing as pipe replacement/mains rehabilitation comes out of capital investment, which is centrally funded, you've experienced first hand how water services were ran into the ground over the years preceding IW, and bought a lovely pup for yourself as you've fallen for the spin hook line and sinker)

I'm afraid there were at least 10 supposed fixes carried out on the exact same place. The shiny blue pipes begin about half a mile further up the road, so have no bearing on the original leak. I find it hard to understand how Irish Water (or their contractors) were able to successfully fix a leak after Local Authorities had 10 attempts. Though, to be fair to the LAs, the repair might last for a year before resurfacing. The LA team (a digger, truck and usually 4 men) could take a day to "fix" the leak temporarily, yet a similar team from IW (or their contractors) had same leak fixed permanently in a couple of hours.