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

SEPT 23 1989 · 07-10-2017 07:08PM

Ireland's water will be worth as much as Norway's oil in 100 years time if the global warming merchants are right

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 07:16PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Ireland's water will be worth as much as Norway's oil in 100 years time if the global warming merchants are right

Yes and knowing this country it will be the private companies making the mula laughing at us taxpaying amadán's

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 07-10-2017 07:19PM

irishfeen wrote: »

Yes and knowing this country it will be the private companies making the mula laughing at us taxpaying amadán's

Why do you persist with this notion of private ownership? Wait until the constitutional referendum before you start panicking over it.

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 07:27PM

Vaughn Skinny Hurricane wrote: »

Why do you persist with this notion of private ownership? Wait until the constitutional referendum before you start panicking over it.

It doesn't matter.. if IW go down the route of giving private firms full control over the infrastructure ... DBO's (Design, Build and Operate) and the likes for periods of 20-30 years then the taxpayers will be taken for a ride - if profit margins are tight then either water quality, man power or other areas of the water network will collapse.

There is no way to make a profit from Water production without fees, fees are gone so SLA's should be retained so the public service for the public good in maintained. Yes IW is needed but not the privitisation of the infrastructure... water is too precious to let private companies play games with it.

elperello · 07-10-2017 07:35PM

Mr Varadker has ruled out a water referendum.
Speaking in the Dail on Wednesday he said any urgency for such a poll was gone.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-rules-out-referendum-on-ownership-of-water-system-1.3244471

Indestructable · 07-10-2017 08:07PM

What would become of the hundreds or even thousands of council workers who currently do the job?

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 08:12PM

Indestructable wrote: »

What would become of the hundreds or even thousands of council workers who currently do the job?

It would surely be thousands... we have no idea - either the dole que or a redistribution throughout the public sector but where the hell would people trained with Water Production qualifications (level 5) not mention Chlorine, Fluoride, leak detection courses etc. undertaken be assigned to.

It makes absolutely no sense to give the jobs to private firms but there goes...

Don't Chute! · 07-10-2017 08:28PM

irishfeen wrote: »

It doesn't matter.. if IW go down the route of giving private firms full control over the infrastructure ... DBO's (Design, Build and Operate) and the likes for periods of 20-30 years then the taxpayers will be taken for a ride - if profit margins are tight then either water quality, man power or other areas of the water network will collapse.

There is no way to make a profit from Water production without fees, fees are gone so SLA's should be retained so the public service for the public good in maintained. Yes IW is needed but not the privitisation of the infrastructure... water is too precious to let private companies play games with it.

DBO's have been in operation in this country since at least 2004. I don't think you understand how water/wastewater treatment is done in this country.

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 08:33PM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

DBO's have been in operation in this country since at least 2004. I don't think you understand how water/wastewater treatment is done in this country.

Yes I do, vast vast majority of plants are still under the responsibility of County Council staff - DB contracts used too while some of main WWTP's are currently operating under Operate and Maintenance contracts.. to varying degrees of success as I have already pointed out.

Don't Chute! · 07-10-2017 08:34PM

Indestructable wrote: »

What would become of the hundreds or even thousands of council workers who currently do the job?

A lot would be offered jobs with the private contractors, however, they would actually have to work instead of what they are used to with the council. I have seen plants operated by private companies with 2/3 people as opposed to anything up to 22(!) by the council.

hmmm · 07-10-2017 08:37PM

It's becoming obvious that this thread is less about "public ownership of water" (whatever that means) and is more about keeping public sector workers happy. Is water supplied by water plants maintained by private operators different water to that supplied by the public sector? Why should a government be in the business of running water plants in the first place?

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 08:37PM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

A lot would be offered jobs with the private contractors, however, they would actually have to work instead of what they are used to with the council. I have seen plants operated by private companies with 2/3 people as opposed to anything up to 22(!) by the council.

22 running the plant on the Water Production side? if so please name it - the largest number of staff I have seen in water production was 4/5 on shiftwork in a single plant.

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 08:41PM

hmmm wrote: »

It's becoming obvious that this thread is less about "public ownership of water" (whatever that means) and is more about keeping public sector workers happy. Is water supplied by water plants maintained by private operators different water to that supplied by the public sector? Why should a government be in the business of running water plants in the first place?

The exact same water from the exact same source with one side providing a public service and the other trying to generate profit... how can you make a profit form a Water Treatment Plant??

How can private firms afford caretakers on a permanent basis getting results of 99.5%+ compliance?

Why? because Water is loss making - you either pay a public service workforce (who are already in place) or pay companies profits?

flutered · 07-10-2017 08:47PM

Allinall wrote: »

The councils made a dogs dinner of managing the water, so this can only be a good move.

councils were deprived of funding from 2011

hmmm · 07-10-2017 08:48PM

irishfeen wrote: »

Why? because Water is loss making - you either pay a public service workforce (who are already in place) or pay companies profits?

There are plenty of examples of private companies meeting the same standards as public sector staff while generating a profit, and for cheaper than the public sector can do it. We'd still be paying Aer Lingus 600 quid a trip to fly to London, or waiting six months to get a phone line for a start.

In many cases public sector organisations over over-staffed, overpaid and are run extremely inefficiently.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 07-10-2017 08:48PM

flutered wrote: »

councils were deprived of funding from 2011

That doesn't explain networks leaking and ignored for decades though.

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 08:50PM

hmmm wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of private companies meeting the same standards as public sector staff while generating a profit, and for cheaper than the public sector can do it. We'd still be paying Aer Lingus 600 quid a trip to fly to London, or waiting six months to get a phone line for a start.

But you are not telling me how you make a profit from a WTP without charges...

flutered · 07-10-2017 08:50PM

Bishopsback wrote: »

Last I heard, it was being mooted that a referendum would be held to enshrine the ownership of IW in the constitution.
I'll look it up.

the t-shock said when releasing the number of referenda to be held, claimed there was no reason to hold one on iw, he also said that the super duper new bot hq would not cost money to run

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 08:53PM

Vaughn Skinny Hurricane wrote: »

That doesn't explain networks leaking and ignored for decades though.

Water was underfunded for decades - its very simple to understand... money was redirected to roads, bins, lighting, footpaths etc

The bad thing about a water network is its underground and nobody sees it so people forget about it!

07-10-2017 08:55PM

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.

Don't Chute! · 07-10-2017 09:02PM

irishfeen wrote: »

The exact same water from the exact same source with one side providing a public service and the other trying to generate profit... how can you make a profit form a Water Treatment Plant??

How can private firms afford caretakers on a permanent basis getting results of 99.5%+ compliance?

Why? because Water is loss making - you either pay a public service workforce (who are already in place) or pay companies profits?

You believe that 99.5%+ figure to be legitimate? With some of the carry-on of councils I've seen over the past twenty years? Gimme a break will you?

stampydmonkey · 07-10-2017 09:04PM

Indestructable wrote: »

What would become of the hundreds or even thousands of council workers who currently do the job?

There are 3500 water staff... They join IW on the same or similar terms or they stay with the council.... And continue doing little to nothing!

Don't Chute! · 07-10-2017 09:11PM

irishfeen wrote: »

But you are not telling me how you make a profit from a WTP without charges...

Well, for a start you hire people who will actually do the work they are supposed to. A well run well maintained plant vs a completely neglected plant left to fall apart will save you a huge amount straight away. I've seen what council workers with the job-for-life mentality do: nothing.

elperello · 07-10-2017 09:15PM

hmmm wrote: »

It's becoming obvious that this thread is less about "public ownership of water" (whatever that means) and is more about keeping public sector workers happy. Is water supplied by water plants maintained by private operators different water to that supplied by the public sector? Why should a government be in the business of running water plants in the first place?

Water is not like other utilities.
In order to protect sources of water supplies requires a broad community effort.
Water is a natural asset and we operate in a sealed system. If it is messed up there is no more to be got and there is no replacement.
It is one utility that should never be privatised.

hmmm · 07-10-2017 09:24PM

elperello wrote: »

Water is not like other utilities.
In order to protect sources of water supplies requires a broad community effort.
Water is a natural asset and we operate in a sealed system. If it is messed up there is no more to be got and there is no replacement.
It is one utility that should never be privatised.

You're worried a private sector worker might pull the plug out and all our water will go down a plughole?

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 09:53PM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Well, for a start you hire people who will actually do the work they are supposed to. A well run well maintained plant vs a completely neglected plant left to fall apart will save you a huge amount straight away. I've seen what council workers with the job-for-life mentality do: nothing.

They are all run well, if not there would be massive implications with regards quality... neglected well yes some probably are but if ur trying to tell me a private firm will cut grass, brush up, painting etc then your actually crazy... unless they are getting very well paid then they won’t even turn up everyday to the plants.

Out of interest do you know how much caretakers starting off are actually on? For a 40hr a week 7 day a week job!

elperello · 07-10-2017 09:58PM

hmmm wrote: »

You're worried a private sector worker might pull the plug out and all our water will go down a plughole?

It was a slightly more serious point than that but I'm all for a bit of a laugh if you insist.

irishfeen · 07-10-2017 10:01PM

People don’t seem to realise the responsibility county council staff have in water production facilities ... do people not realise the mixture of chemicals and procedures needed to bring safe water to your tap?

People say and they do have a point some council staff are beyond useless in keeping plants tidy but as I say 99.5%+ safety standard met across the country every single day and night!

end of the road · 07-10-2017 10:43PM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

You are talking absolute nonsense. I work in the water treatment business for a private company and I can tell you for a fact that what you are saying about councils vs private contractors is the exact opposite. Every single plant I've ever seen run by councils have been in a terrible state. We run plants to a much higher standard with way less people and a much smaller budget. The reason for this is because these self same councils hold us to account for the running of the plants, something they can't do with their own plants because of unions and lazy good-for-nothing workers. You come across as someone who has an axe to grind about private contractors. Work for a council yourself do you?

wrong, it's nothing to do with unions. unions and lazy workers exist within the private sector as well as the public sector.

Don't Chute! wrote: »

A lot would be offered jobs with the private contractors, however, they would actually have to work instead of what they are used to with the council. I have seen plants operated by private companies with 2/3 people as opposed to anything up to 22(!) by the council.

they all ready work. if they didn't they wouldn't be in their job. there are no plants operated by 22 people unless 22 people are what is required to operate those plants. your inaccuracies about council workers are just that.

end of the road · 07-10-2017 10:52PM

hmmm wrote: »

It's becoming obvious that this thread is less about "public ownership of water" (whatever that means) and is more about keeping public sector workers happy. Is water supplied by water plants maintained by private operators different water to that supplied by the public sector? Why should a government be in the business of running water plants in the first place?

because it's their job, and water belongs to the people. water is a human right and is not for profit. no amount of uk tory party style ideaological dogma will change that reality.

hmmm wrote: »

There are plenty of examples of private companies meeting the same standards as public sector staff while generating a profit, and for cheaper than the public sector can do it. We'd still be paying Aer Lingus 600 quid a trip to fly to London, or waiting six months to get a phone line for a start.

irrelevant and invalid comparisons. air travel isn't a public service. how many people have landlines now anyway also. water has to remain fully public for the greater good as it's a human right.

hmmm wrote: »

In many cases public sector organisations over over-staffed, overpaid and are run extremely inefficiently.

wrong, there are no public sector organisations who are overstaffed or overpaid.

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

Comments