Water ownership...It hasn't gone away you know.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

Don't think abortion issue is comparable - society had moved on.


The water thing would be going backwards - it's a complete waste of money too. I would expect fears about private property rights could easily be engendered by the opposition.


I agree opportunism is rife in politics (everywhere?) and I can live with a large amount of it. For me the water charges was a bridge too far - the arguments were farcical and FF gained nothing by their poltroonery.

I imagine when people look at the money wasted on the water metering fiasco, the cost of a referendum will be looked at as small change.


I feel opportunism is fairly rife around here as well in that most if not all those opposed to a referendum on here are only doing so as they they see it as a threat to their beloved water meters than anything to do with the constitution or private property rights.



I can see fear tactics being attempted as to these private property rights, (in the way fear tactics were attempted with water charges), but when it comes to a referendum, I cannot see the majority of voters in the 1 million plus household that were liable for metering not voting to ensure there is never privitisation of water.


I know that has been a claim by many who favoured water charges that the had no effect on the lose of seats for FG and Labour and the increase of seats for FF in the last GE. Admittedly it would be difficult to quantify the exact effect, but when you get a seasoned old political head like the then Minister for Finance Michael Noonan calling for the dead cat to be taken off the pitch, obviously he was of the belief it was a factor.

irishfeen

The biggest problem of all will be the 3500 pubic servants in Water Services in the various county councils.

Without them the system or Irish Water cannot function and at the moment they are fully behind resisting any move away from the councils.

FreudianSlippers

irishfeen wrote: »

The biggest problem of all will be the 3500 pubic servants in Water Services in the various county councils.

Without them the system or Irish Water cannot function and at the moment they are fully behind resisting any move away from the councils.

Still ignored (purposely I presume) by the proponents of the referendum on here that FORSA has admitted that this referendum is about exactly this and it has nothing to do with privatisation fears.

James Brown

irishfeen wrote: »

The biggest problem of all will be the 3500 pubic servants in Water Services in the various county councils.

Without them the system or Irish Water cannot function and at the moment they are fully behind resisting any move away from the councils.

It's a problem of the states creation. You're a public sector worker, employed by an LA, and the state wants you to move to a zombie quango nobody wanted in the first place? I'd be reluctant. The former water departments of the LA's are working under IW already, IW should be left as an administrative body overseeing country wide upgrading of the system and nothing more. It should have ever only been a sub division of the DoE and an administrative HQ ensuring projects were carried out in tandem between councils.
Unless the idea is everyone gets based in Dublin, we'll see the costs of IW satellite depots coming in, when councils are already equipped for such things in each area.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a problem of the states creation. You're a public sector worker, employed by an LA, and the state wants you to move to a zombie quango nobody wanted in the first place? I'd be reluctant. The former water departments of the LA's are working under IW already, IW should be left as an administrative body overseeing country wide upgrading of the system and nothing more. It should have ever only been a sub division of the DoE and an administrative HQ ensuring projects were carried out in tandem between councils.
Unless the idea is everyone gets based in Dublin, we'll see the costs of IW satellite depots coming in, when councils are already equipped for such things in each area.

Meanwhile, in reality, there just isn't a need for that many administrative employees.

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Meanwhile, in reality, there just isn't a need for that many administrative employees.

Which in reality is just another example of the fiasco created by FG/Labour with their Irish Water/domestic water metering brainfart.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

Which in reality is just another example of the fiasco created by FG/Labour with their Irish Water/domestic water metering brainfart.

FG/Labour hired thousands of LA union employees through Irish Water?

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FG/Labour hired thousands of LA union employees through Irish Water?

FG/Labour established an overall authority for water services that was supposedly going to be more streamlined and cost efficient, yet maintained all the previous staff and just added more to do the job the LA`s were already doing. But you know all this already.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

FG/Labour established an overall authority for water services that was supposedly going to be more streamlined and cost efficient, yet maintained all the previous staff and just added more to do the job the LA`s were already doing. But you know all this already.

You are also aware that it was the intention of Irish Water to shed these employees or incorporate them into Irish Water as/where appropriate. It's absolutely ridiculous for you to claim that all of these people were hired or retained by Irish Water as a result of an intention of FG/Labour.

Nonsense of your own making.

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You are also aware that it was the intention of Irish Water to shed these employees or incorporate them into Irish Water as/where appropriate. It's absolutely ridiculous for you to claim that all of these people were hired or retained by Irish Water as a result of an intention of FG/Labour.

Nonsense of your own making.

So how many less are now employed in the provision of water services as opposed to those employed prior to the creation of Irish Water ?

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

So how many less are now employed in the provision of water services as opposed to those employed prior to the creation of Irish Water ?

I have no idea, I'm sure you can provide the documentation to prove your point?

In any event, you are well aware that people like yourself are championing the fact that you stopped Irish Water from being properly implemented, so it's a moot question entirely.

Just like the fact that the current FORSA call for a constitutional amendment is a blatant and admitted attempt protect these Local Authority jobs ad infinitum.

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have no idea, I'm sure you can provide the documentation to prove your point?

In any event, you are well aware that people like yourself are championing the fact that you stopped Irish Water from being properly implemented, so it's a moot question entirely.

Just like the fact that the current FORSA call for a constitutional amendment is a blatant and admitted attempt protect these Local Authority jobs ad infinitum.

Now now you know quite well that what I was opposed to was water charges.

I just saw Irish Water as an irrelevant waste of time and money as they were basically nothing more than a vehicle for collection of these charges, doing nothing that the LA`s were not already doing but employing more at the expense of the taxpayer to do so.
I have no problem with Irish Water or for that matter the LA`s shedding people who are not necessary for the provision of water services.

Why you see this as a reason to prevent a referendum on privitisation I have no idea.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

Now now you know quite well that what I was opposed to was water charges.

I just saw Irish Water as an irrelevant waste of time and money as they were basically nothing more than a vehicle for collection of these charges, doing nothing that the LA`s were not already doing but employing more at the expense of the taxpayer to do so.
I have no problem with Irish Water or for that matter the LA`s shedding people who are not necessary for the provision of water services.

Why you see this as a reason to prevent a referendum on privitisation I have no idea.

FORSA (who are the only ones lobbying for this referendum) have admitted that there is no likelihood of privatisation and the referendum is to retain the staffing at the LAs; Irish Water, if allowed to be properly implemented, would have resulted in reduced numbers of LA staff. As it is currently implemented, Irish Water will oversee the individual LAs at their current staffing levels - this is hugely wasteful and only benefits the unions.

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FORSA (who are the only ones lobbying for this referendum) have admitted that there is no likelihood of privatisation and the referendum is to retain the staffing at the LAs; Irish Water, if allowed to be properly implemented, would have resulted in reduced numbers of LA staff. As it is currently implemented, Irish Water will oversee the individual LAs at their current staffing levels - this is hugely wasteful and only benefits the unions.

FORSA may be lobbying for a referendum, but to suggest they are not the only ones in favour of a referendum is disingenuous in the extreme.
There is nothing in the scraping of water charges that prevents Irish Water reducing their staff levels that was not there prior to water charges being scrapped. To suggest that Irish Water not being "properly implemented" has altered that one iota is again disingenuous.

James Brown

The LA's have been using contractors for many many years. Their depots are a skeleton crew. Irish Water is the fat money hole of a quango in this picture. It was a waste of money to try move away from the LA model and try replace it with the exact same model, but under IW and with more staffing. Are the numbers who processed billing still the same? I've not heard of IW letting anyone go.
If I worked for an LA I would fight tooth and nail to keep away from IW. Hopefully it's only a matter of time before we get in some form of a decent politician who will just put it out of our misery.

It was Coppinger put the idea forward and I guarantee the vast majority of the Irish public will support it, unless FG fudge it so badly it's pointless. FF/FG need to be babysat and kept in check. That's a hard reality. They do not have the best interests of the tax payer at heart.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

FORSA may be lobbying for a referendum, but to suggest they are not the only ones in favour of a referendum is disingenuous in the extreme.

Ok, name one other organisation pushing for a referendum on this issue.

There is nothing in the scraping of water charges that prevents Irish Water reducing their staff levels that was not there prior to water charges being scrapped.

That's an extraordinarily difficult sentence to comprehend due to its composition, but I believe what you're saying is that you believe that Irish Water can fire people working in Local Authorities?

To suggest that Irish Water not being "properly implemented" has altered that one iota is again disingenuous.

The initial plan for Irish Water has been partially implemented, the remainder has not including the transfer of staff from Local Authorities - the very thing that FORSA is trying to stop.

Are you even remotely interested in a factual conversation or do you just rely on how you believe things are? It's ridiculous to try to have a conversation with someone that just makes things up as they go along.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The LA's have been using contractors for many many years. Their depots are a skeleton crew.

Tell that to FORSA who are pushing for this referendum to protect the jobs of 3,500 of their members.

Irish Water is the fat money hole of a quango in this picture. It was a waste of money to try move away from the LA model and try replace it with the exact same model, but under IW and with more staffing.

This is ridiculously misinformed.

Irish Water would be taking over the water provision services of the 31 Local Authorities currently supplying water; their intention was to reduce the workforce by 10% in the first year - which they were prevented from doing during the whole water charges nonsense.

This is not a duplication of the LA model, it's a replacement for the LA model.

Are the numbers who processed billing still the same? I've not heard of IW letting anyone go.

Basic information that, if you had bothered to do any even minor search, is readily available.

Abtran hired 350 temporary staff to deal with billing and that's finished now obviously.

Irish Water has 759 employees spending about €49m on them, however they spent €220,802,000 on Local Authority employees in 2017.

All in their annual report.

blanch152

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Tell that to FORSA who are pushing for this referendum to protect the jobs of 3,500 of their members.


This is ridiculously misinformed.

Irish Water would be taking over the water provision services of the 31 Local Authorities currently supplying water; their intention was to reduce the workforce by 10% in the first year - which they were prevented from doing during the whole water charges nonsense.

This is not a duplication of the LA model, it's a replacement for the LA model.


Basic information that, if you had bothered to do any even minor search, is readily available.

Abtran hired 350 temporary staff to deal with billing and that's finished now obviously.

Irish Water has 759 employees spending about €49m on them, however they spent €220,802,000 on Local Authority employees in 2017.

All in their annual report.

Thanks again for shedding some light on the facts and putting an end to some of the nonsensical posturing that is regularly seen around here.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

So how many less are now employed in the provision of water services as opposed to those employed prior to the creation of Irish Water ?

Here, as it's Christmas time and all, I've gone ahead and done your homework for you.

Around 700 fewer employees in the provision of water services as of 2017, where the plan was to shed an additional 1,000 once the implementation of Irish Water was completed (i.e. inter alia transfer of employees to Irish Water).

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-water-to-speed-up-transfer-of-council-staff-463068.html

This number was increased to 1,300 by 2021 as recently as July.
Source, funnily enough from someone opposed to the transfer: http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/48347

Deputy &#211 wrote: »

Today we got confirmation that Irish Water is looking to reduce the number of people working in water services by 1,300 by 2021.

This is a result of the company seeking to end the service level agreements (SLAs) with local authorities in 2021 instead of 2026.

While Irish Water confirmed that there would be no compulsory redundancies even a voluntary redundancy scheme on this scale could have serious implications for the provision of services for the public.

As FORSA has pointed out (on questioning on Morning Ireland as well as other radio interviews) they do not envisage that privatisation is likely or on the cards at all, but they object to the transfer of employees to the national utility proposed, as it will be a loss of up to 1,300 employees/members - the purpose of the referendum is to stop this transfer and keep them in the LAs

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Here, as it's Christmas time and all, I've gone ahead and done your homework for you.

Around 700 fewer employees in the provision of water services as of 2017, where the plan was to shed an additional 1,000 once the implementation of Irish Water was completed (i.e. inter alia transfer of employees to Irish Water).

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-water-to-speed-up-transfer-of-council-staff-463068.html

This number was increased to 1,300 by 2021 as recently as July.
Source, funnily enough from someone opposed to the transfer: http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/48347


As FORSA has pointed out (on questioning on Morning Ireland as well as other radio interviews) they do not envisage that privatisation is likely or on the cards at all, but they object to the transfer of employees to the national utility proposed, as it will be a loss of up to 1,300 employees/members - the purpose of the referendum is to stop this transfer and keep them in the LAs

So where is the problem. Irish Water have already shed 700 without this so called full implementation that you somehow appeared earlier to believe was not done due to protest over domestic water charges. Other than a row with unions I do not see what has changed with water charges scraped to prevent them shedding more if they are not required.


The purpose of this referendum, no matter how you are attempting to sell it, is not to prevent 1,300 FORSA members being transferred to Irish Water.
It is to ensure water services are never privatised.
In a referendum I think you will find that a very large multiple of 1,300 will vote accordingly.

irishfeen

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Meanwhile, in reality, there just isn't a need for that many administrative employees.

What administrative employees? Who exactly are you talking about?

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

So where is the problem.

I'm done making your points for you - time to either engage rationally or go away tbh. You're the one who has constantly failed to make a rational or evidence-based statement in this or any thread related to water. You didn't know that 700 employees were shed when you asked the question did you?

Irish Water have already shed 700 without this so called full implementation that you somehow appeared earlier to believe was not done due to protest over domestic water charges. Other than a row with unions I do not see what has changed with water charges scraped to prevent them shedding more if they are not required.

1) There is still double that to get rid of;
2) It's not "so called full implementation" - for a starter, employees haven't been transferred to Irish Water yet. The business model has not yet been implemented fully - this isn't rocket science;
3) Water Charges have absolutely not been scrapped, they are still being paid by the State to Irish Water and there is legislation enacted to charge consumers.

The purpose of this referendum, no matter how you are attempting to sell it, is not to prevent 1,300 FORSA members being transferred to Irish Water.

Well, the fact of the matter is that FORSA is the only party calling for this referendum and lobbying for it and they say it is.

It is to ensure water services are never privatised.

No, it isn't. It never has been, because that is not something that is going to happen. Now, it is clear there are some very misguided views on what "water services" means, but that isn't a good reason for a constitutional referendum.

In a referendum I think you will find that a very large multiple of 1,300 will vote accordingly.

I have absolutely no doubt from my time on boards.ie that there are certainly "very large multiple of 1,300" absolute idiots uneducated voters in Ireland who would "vote accordingly". That doesn't mean a whole lot in reality though, does it?

FreudianSlippers

irishfeen wrote: »

What administrative employees? Who exactly are you talking about?

I'm not sure of their names or PPS numbers, as I'm not in FORSA or working for Irish Water unfortunately. There are 1,300 employees to be made redundant, very few of those are employees engaged in building/maintenance of the infrastructure - they are working in administrative positions in the Local Authorities.

irishfeen

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure of their names or PPS numbers, as I'm not in FORSA or working for Irish Water unfortunately. There are 1,300 employees to be made redundant, very few of those are employees engaged in building/maintenance of the infrastructure - they are working in administrative positions in the Local Authorities.

So you think public servants will take being made redundant under any circumstance?

There would be public sector wide industrial action, I would love to know who all the administration staff are because in the county councils admin sections in water departments are small.

FreudianSlippers

irishfeen wrote: »

So you think public servants will take being made redundant under any circumstance?

There would be public sector wide industrial action, I would love to know who all the administration staff are because in the county councils admin sections in water departments are small.

I understand that threads like these can move quickly, but I don't think there's an excuse for not reading six posts back before posting.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108914647&postcount=560

irishfeen

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I understand that threads like these can move quickly, but I don't think there's an excuse for not reading six posts back before posting.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108914647&postcount=560

No I’m asking you do you actually seriously think a gun is going to be put to the head of 3500 public servants running among the most vital public services in Ireland?

blanch152

irishfeen wrote: »

No I’m asking you do you actually seriously think a gun is going to be put to the head of 3500 public servants running among the most vital public services in Ireland?

It is most likely that the redeployment arrangements will come into play and the 1,500* will be transferred to other duties elsewhere as retirements and resignations take place and as new demands for services open up.

However, there will be a net reduction of the 1,500 in the local authority system.


*I assume the 1,500 number is correct, this is only an explanation of how it works.

FreudianSlippers

irishfeen wrote: »

No I’m asking you do you actually seriously think a gun is going to be put to the head of 3500 public servants running among the most vital public services in Ireland?

It's clearly not a vital public service at all if Irish Water is stopped at every roadblock from implementing its business plan; it's clearly not a vital public service if we continue to allow the Local Authorities who have abjectly and absolutely FAILED to maintain and deliver an adequate modern water service; it is clearly not a vital public service if the jobs of some civil servants are more important than the provision of that service.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is most likely that the redeployment arrangements will come into play and the 1,500* will be transferred to other duties elsewhere as retirements and resignations take place and as new demands for services open up.

However, there will be a net reduction of the 1,500 in the local authority system.


*I assume the 1,500 number is correct, this is only an explanation of how it works.

It would be a greater reduction than that I think, which is why FORSA is so against it. It's a reduction of (I think) 1,300 jobs to 2021 and then transfer of other relevant employees from the Local Authorities to Irish Water.

blanch152

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's clearly not a vital public service at all if Irish Water is stopped at every roadblock from implementing its business plan; it's clearly not a vital public service if we continue to allow the Local Authorities who have abjectly and absolutely FAILED to maintain and deliver an adequate modern water service; it is clearly not a vital public service if the jobs of some civil servants are more important than the provision of that service.


It would be a greater reduction than that I think, which is why FORSA is so against it. It's a reduction of (I think) 1,300 jobs to 2021 and then transfer of other relevant employees from the Local Authorities to Irish Water.

I am sure you are correct, but in explaining one of the mechanisms for how reductions in public service numbers are achieved, I didn't want to get distracted by any argument over the quantity.

irishfeen

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's clearly not a vital public service at all if Irish Water is stopped at every roadblock from implementing its business plan; it's clearly not a vital public service if we continue to allow the Local Authorities who have abjectly and absolutely FAILED to maintain and deliver an adequate modern water service; it is clearly not a vital public service if the jobs of some civil servants are more important than the provision of that service.


It would be a greater reduction than that I think, which is why FORSA is so against it. It's a reduction of (I think) 1,300 jobs to 2021 and then transfer of other relevant employees from the Local Authorities to Irish Water.

And have you ever wondered why the water network is in such a bad state? ... it has been the massive under investment in water for decades.

EPS and other private firms have taken over Water/Wastewater Treatment Plants and have ran them into the ground as they cut corners to make a profit and some have been handed back to the local authorities.

Other private firms fixing the actual leaks (or attempting to) on the networks are actively trying to take on LA staff because they have absolutely no knowledge of how to find or fix the leaks.

The LA staff are the experts in providing and running the water network, it is not their fault under investment has the network in such a state.

It is very very easy to spout “facts” that LA workers are useless and the likes but I would love to know could you run a WTP or find a leak or fix a leak. Most if not all Water Caretakers are now fully qualified with papers to run water treatment plants - they provide a 24/7 365 day a year service for a wage of 32-35k per annum.