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

elperello · 08-10-2017 10:08PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You have forgotten that rain exists.

Just Google water cycle and get back to me.

elperello · 08-10-2017 10:14PM

hmmm wrote: »

The evil private sector peoples are not going to steal all our water, would you ever get over yourself. It doesn't matter whether a water plant is run by the public or private sector, it's all the same water - and if the private sector can do it cheaper, then there's no reason not to use them and give the taxpayer some respite.

Actually, maybe we could bottle water from public sector plants and sell it to people who want to pay more for their water untainted by the touch of the private sector?

The private sector is not inherently evil and the public service deals with the private sector all the time.
I just believe that water being such an important and complicated resource is too important to be handed over to the private sector.

stampydmonkey · 08-10-2017 11:07PM

elperello wrote: »

The private sector is not inherently evil and the public service deals with the private sector all the time.
I just believe that water being such an important and complicated resource is too important to be handed over to the private sector.

As said above

Erviva is a State-owned company and will continue to own the infrastructure.

Hotblack Desiato · 09-10-2017 08:27AM

elperello wrote: »

It's actually 97.5% seawater and the only way you can use this is by desalination which is highly energy consuming.

This is Grade A nonsense.

The sun does a great job of desalinating it for us for free. We, and the vast majority of the world's population, do not live in desert areas.

Don't Chute! · 09-10-2017 09:01AM

irishfeen wrote: »

Experience of the plants are anything but standing outside and looking in water, Wastewater and distribution networks - you want to leave it there because you cannot accept the responsibility the council has and its success in keeping standards so good..

You seem to be very slack with info yourself.. where was the 22 council staff in water production at a single plant?

The plant I referred to is Leixlip water. I was there in the late 90's and they had approximately 22 staff. Ok some of them were on shift work but there was only one on duty at night. On the staff they had a painter. Full time, who spent his entire day every day asleep in a little storeroom hidden away. He literally slept all day long, you would only know he was onsite when you saw him go home. Another two General Operatives spent their days walking around with brushes in their hands singing!! The only time they actually swept anything was when someone from management was walking past. That is a fact. I saw this with my own eyes. If you think that's a good way to run a plant then good luck to you.

end of the road · 09-10-2017 10:59AM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

The plant I referred to is Leixlip water. I was there in the late 90's and they had approximately 22 staff. Ok some of them were on shift work but there was only one on duty at night. On the staff they had a painter. Full time, who spent his entire day every day asleep in a little storeroom hidden away. He literally slept all day long, you would only know he was onsite when you saw him go home. Another two General Operatives spent their days walking around with brushes in their hands singing!! The only time they actually swept anything was when someone from management was walking past. That is a fact. I saw this with my own eyes. If you think that's a good way to run a plant then good luck to you.

that's 4 extra staff members you mention. a far cry from 22.

markpb · 09-10-2017 11:30AM

elperello wrote: »

I just believe that water being such an important and complicated resource is too important to be handed over to the private sector.

Too complicated? The council workers are much more intelligent than their private sector counterparts, are they? What a load of tosh.

Don't Chute! · 09-10-2017 02:50PM

end of the road wrote: »

that's 4 extra staff members you mention. a far cry from 22.

I think it's scary how little you understand about things like this.

elperello · 09-10-2017 03:16PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is Grade A nonsense.

The sun does a great job of desalinating it for us for free. We, and the vast majority of the world's population, do not live in desert areas.

I'll try again to explain it to you.
The 97.5% of the planets water that is seawater is a true figure.
You are confusing the natural action of the water cycle with desalination.
The water we get through the water cycle is the water we need for life on the planet.
If we screw up this natural cycle the only other way to get freshwater is through desalination which requires high energy input.
Of course we don't live in a desert area, I didn't say we do.
However the people who do are under increasing pressure.

elperello · 09-10-2017 03:22PM

markpb wrote: »

Too complicated? The council workers are much more intelligent than their private sector counterparts, are they? What a load of tosh.

My comment wasn't on the merits of different sector workers at all.

Roger Hassenforder · 09-10-2017 03:34PM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

The plant I referred to is Leixlip water. I was there in the late 90's and they had approximately 22 staff. Ok some of them were on shift work but there was only one on duty at night. On the staff they had a painter. Full time, who spent his entire day every day asleep in a little storeroom hidden away. He literally slept all day long, you would only know he was onsite when you saw him go home. Another two General Operatives spent their days walking around with brushes in their hands singing!! The only time they actually swept anything was when someone from management was walking past. That is a fact. I saw this with my own eyes. If you think that's a good way to run a plant then good luck to you.

ah here, 22 people employed to run a water treatment plant?
even in the 90s?
I'm calling bullsh1t!

or was it 22 people based in the water treatment plant?
(i.e. with operational duties in a distribution network>)

Ush1 · 09-10-2017 03:35PM

end of the road wrote: »

our water has to be fully public for the greater good. the public sector is the cheapist for water, as it doesn't have to make a profit.

So you think operating at a loss is a good thing? Nothing is free, it means more money from taxation. It means it's being run badly if it's running at a loss.

Don't Chute! · 09-10-2017 04:26PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

ah here, 22 people employed to run a water treatment plant?
even in the 90s?
I'm calling bullsh1t!

or was it 22 people based in the water treatment plant?
(i.e. with operational duties in a distribution network>)

You can call bull**** all you want.

end of the road · 09-10-2017 06:50PM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

I think it's scary how little you understand about things like this.

oh i understand it alright.

Ush1 wrote: »

So you think operating at a loss is a good thing? Nothing is free, it means more money from taxation. It means it's being run badly if it's running at a loss.

vital public services making a profit would be nice but it doesn't happen and likely never will. breaking even is the best possible outcome and even then that is rarely achievable. so public services have to be funded by taxation.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-10-2017 12:41AM

elperello wrote: »

You are confusing the natural action of the water cycle with desalination.

No I'm not. Why are you even talking about desalination? This is Ireland not Australia.

elperello wrote: »

It's actually 97.5% seawater and the only way you can use this is by desalination which is highly energy consuming.

We don't have to do anything to be able to 'use' seawater, in this country we get generous quantities of distilled seawater deposited on us most days of the year.

As to how any of this has to do with privatisation, well that's a mystery :rolleyes:

The water we get through the water cycle is the water we need for life on the planet.
If we screw up this natural cycle the only other way to get freshwater is through desalination which requires high energy input.

Like how, block out the sun? ffs.

gerryirl · 20-10-2017 06:27PM

As someone who worked in the private sector and now currently works in the Public Sector in water services I find this thread interesting to say the least. Some of you know what your actually talking about but many only think they know what there talking about. Big difference. Alot of what is talked about here is the general public perception of the public sector which in many cases is untrue or exaggerated

baylah17 · 20-10-2017 08:29PM

irishfeen wrote: »

A memo has been released to County Council Union shop stewards working in the Water departments yesterday on behalf of SIPTU, IMPACT, UNITE, TEEU & LAPO.

Irish Water are looking to break a Service Level Agreement agreed with the public service and want to take full control making "Significant" changes to how the Water infrastructure is run in Ireland - looks like taking county councils completely out of the equation in favour of private companies given operation contracts.

"Irish Water announced that they wish to make significant changes to the way water services are delivered. In short they announced that the Board of Ervia (the parent company of Irish Water) had decided that they would not be entering into a further service level agreement with local authorities and that they wished to exit the current service level agreements prior to the expiry date of 2025, preferably in 2021. Irish Water further announced that they had informed the Minister of this and the Minister had noted their decision

In response the unions said that this announcement would create a lot of uncertainty and anger amongst the staff of Local Authorities and it would add to anxiety about the future ownership of Irish Water"

Have seen nothing in the press today about this very worrying development, you would have to wonder how private companies (who are out to make money full stop) can be good in terms of the tax payer. At least the local authorities sole job was providing a service, trying to make profits on the backs of tax payers is going to be hard to stomach.

Thank goodness
Not before time.

end of the road · 20-10-2017 10:21PM

baylah17 wrote: »

Thank goodness
Not before time.

why is that then.

baylah17 · 21-10-2017 06:16AM

end of the road wrote: »

baylah17 wrote: »

Thank goodness
Not before time.

why is that then.

Far more efficient

end of the road · 21-10-2017 11:54AM

baylah17 wrote: »

Far more efficient

wrong. fake news. it's already ran as efficiently as it can be

Bishopsback · 21-10-2017 12:55PM

end of the road wrote: »

wrong. fake news. it's already ran as efficiently as it can be

Aye, its good enough:).
There's always those who except mediocrity.

Roger Hassenforder · 21-10-2017 01:45PM

baylah17 wrote: »

Far more efficient

Any evidence?

McMurphy · 21-10-2017 03:02PM

is there still people shilling on behalf of the overstaffed, incompetent quango?

Surely it has to boil down for no other reason than who's "team" came up with the omnisbambles now?

Yes the state needs to look after its water infrastructure, and it needs to be minded and maintained by someone.

Irish water clearly isn't that someone though.

It was a FG inspired - literally - wet dream.

Best for the nation as a whole if we all moved on , and put the costly and incompetent experiment behind us.

stampydmonkey · 21-10-2017 06:46PM

So Rick, who is best placed to deal with it?

Surely a single entity based on an existing company with over 30 years of gas infrastructure installation and maintenance, and staffed with the combined knowledge of local authority staff and engineers hired from multiple consultants who already design and maintain the water network but now all under 1 roof with all the efficiencies that that entails...

stampydmonkey · 21-10-2017 06:47PM

In addition how many staff do you think Irish Water employ?

Hotblack Desiato · 21-10-2017 07:07PM

Rick your argument falls at the first fence. Irish Water worked out how many people they needed to employ to run the national water network, that was 1500 less than the councils were and are employing to do exactly the same thing.

Outrage over a couple of high-paid executives is one thing, but where's the outrage about 1500 council employees paid from the public purse to do effectively nothing?

McMurphy · 21-10-2017 07:44PM

stampydmonkey wrote: »

So Rick, who is best placed to deal with it?

A slimmed down, more efficient and effective company, similar to the highly successful streamlined NRA. Call it Irish Water mark 2 for all I care.

Irish water 1 was a failure. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the charges were ultimately scrapped?

Surely a single entity based on an existing company with over 30 years of gas infrastructure installation and maintenance, and staffed with the combined knowledge of local authority staff and engineers hired from multiple consultants who already design and maintain the water network but now all under 1 roof with all the efficiencies that that entails...

I'm not sure if this part is satirical or not.

Even Ervia themselves admit they failed in their objectives. But besides that, let's take a little side step and examine the cost saving efficiencies involved in how Irish Waters business model was operating.

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.

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)

Only, they're now acting as contractors to Irish water, so once the job is completed, they send an invoice off to Irish water that needs paid.

Only problem with that scenario is, they're already funded by taxpayers money.

In other words the tax payer funded council lads who always maintained the infrastructure were now doing so as contractors to another semi state entity that was in no way shape or form funding itself for existing, never mind pumping any funds towards actual water services.

Or. A taxpayers funded entity was invoicing another taxpayer funded tumourto pay itself for something it always did anyway only now there's layers of red tape and bureaucracy thrown in for the craic on top

I find it unbelievable that there's anyone left that would still try and stand over Irish Waters previous business model considering everything that has emerged during and since its conception.

I will repeat my assertion that only shills/supporters of the people who created it, or the truly gullible are the ones left trying to defend it.

Pick one.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Rick your argument falls at the first fence. Irish Water worked out how many people they needed to employ to run the national water network, that was 1500 less than the councils were and are employing to do exactly the same thing.

This would be the same Irish water who initially estimated we used almost twice the amount of water we actually did, and in fact when data was compiled it was shown that we were among the lowest consumers of water in the EU, lower than many countries who have had water charges for years, debunking any myth at all that we were "wasters" of water?

Also see my post above about employing the same people to do the same thing.

Outrage over a couple of high-paid executives is one thing, but where's the outrage about 1500 council employees paid from the public purse to do effectively nothing?

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?

There were several very busy threads on the subject with (IIRC) several million combined views on the subject.

Much if not all what you are trying o defend has already been addressed and debunked on them.

Bishopsback · 21-10-2017 09:18PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

A slimmed down, more efficient and effective company, similar to the highly successful streamlined NRA. Call it Irish Water mark 2 for all I care.

Irish water 1 was a failure. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why the charges were ultimately scrapped?

I'm not sure if this part is satirical or not.

Even Ervia themselves admit they failed in their objectives. But besides that, let's take a little side step and examine the cost saving efficiencies involved in how Irish Waters business model was operating.

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.

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)

Only, they're now acting as contractors to Irish water, so once the job is completed, they send an invoice off to Irish water that needs paid.

Only problem with that scenario is, they're already funded by taxpayers money.

In other words the tax payer funded council lads who always maintained the infrastructure were now doing so as contractors to another semi state entity that was in no way shape or form funding itself for existing, never mind pumping any funds towards actual water services.

Or. A taxpayers funded entity was invoicing another taxpayer funded tumourto pay itself for something it always did anyway only now there's layers of red tape and bureaucracy thrown in for the craic on top

I find it unbelievable that there's anyone left that would still try and stand over Irish Waters previous business model considering everything that has emerged during and since its conception.

I will repeat my assertion that only shills/supporters of the people who created it, or the truly gullible are the ones left trying to defend it.

Pick one.

This would be the same Irish water who initially estimated we used almost twice the amount of water we actually did, and in fact when data was compiled it was shown that we were among the lowest consumers of water in the EU, lower than many countries who have had water charges for years, debunking any myth at all that we were "wasters" of water?

Also see my post above about employing the same people to do the same thing.

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?

There were several very busy threads on the subject with (IIRC) several million combined views on the subject.

Much if not all what you are trying o defend has already been addressed and debunked on them.

Pretty long winded old rehash.
Interesting to see you favour a single entity though.
Call it what you like its an admission that the old local authority system wasn't working, so FG/Lab tried to fix it but they are the wrong politics so another political body can do it but as long as its not FG it'll be better.
Sigh!

stampydmonkey · 21-10-2017 09:24PM

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

unit 1 · 21-10-2017 10:11PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Rick your argument falls at the first fence. Irish Water worked out how many people they needed to employ to run the national water network, that was 1500 less than the councils were and are employing to do exactly the same thing.

Outrage over a couple of high-paid executives is one thing, but where's the outrage about 1500 council employees paid from the public purse to do effectively nothing?

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)

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

Comments