Should teachers in the 5 carillion schools pass pickets put there by unpaid sub contr

GarIT · 18-07-2018 12:32AM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

https://rte.ie/r.html?rii=b9_21400648_83_17-07-2018_
In the first few seconds. Are RTE lying?
Later on, are Walsh Furniture lying over their €200k?

Subcontractor has not been paid, they are correct, the contractor was paid and is the only entity responsible for paying the subcontractor.

I don't know how many times it needs to be spelled out for people. The school had a contract with a contractor, the school got what it wanted, the contractor got paid, everything on that deal is done.

The contractor decided to hire a subcontractor to do some of it's work, the work was done but the contractor went bust before paying the subcontractor. The only dispute is between the contractor and subcontractor, taking stuff from the school or picketing the school is just bullying scumbag behaviour.

SligoBrewer · 18-07-2018 11:49AM

GarIT wrote: »

Subcontractor has not been paid, they are correct, the contractor was paid and is the only entity responsible for paying the subcontractor.

I don't know how many times it needs to be spelled out for people. The school had a contract with a contractor, the school got what it wanted, the contractor got paid, everything on that deal is done.

The contractor decided to hire a subcontractor to do some of it's work, the work was done but the contractor went bust before paying the subcontractor. The only dispute is between the contractor and subcontractor, taking stuff from the school or picketing the school is just bullying scumbag behaviour.

You call it bullying, I call it people taking a stand and trying to force the Government to do the right thing.

lawred2 · 18-07-2018 11:52AM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Union members of whatever union should never pass a picket tbf.

that's absolute nonsense

How is Carillion's collapse a Teacher's union issue?

Teachers have no association whatsoever to what happened here.

Trasna1 · 18-07-2018 11:55AM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

You call it bullying, I call it people taking a stand and trying to force the Government to do the right thing.

And the right thing is pay for this stuff twice?

As I asked you already, if you bought a car from a dealer and the importer wasn't paid by the dealer, would you be happy for the importer to walk into your drive and take it back? And then attempt to sell it to you again?!

lawred2 · 18-07-2018 11:57AM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

You call it bullying, I call it people taking a stand and trying to force the Government to do the right thing.

the government/state has done the right thing

It paid the contractor in full. It honored its contract. It did not have a contract with the subcontractor.

If that's not doing the right thing - I'd love to know what doing the wrong thing would be..

SligoBrewer · 18-07-2018 12:01PM

lawred2 wrote: »

the government has done the right thing

It paid the contractor in full. It honored its contract. It did not have a contract with the subcontractor.

If that's not doing the right thing - I'd love to know what doing the wrong thing would be..

The right thing wouldn't be to leave it's citizens without the means to put bread on the table.

We were pretty quick to get involved to sort out bondholders because God forbid they would lose money, but when it comes to the little man in the street who is left carrying the can for state ineptitude he's labelled a bullying scumbag for taking a stand.

lawred2 · 18-07-2018 12:01PM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

The right thing wouldn't be to leave it's citizens without the means to put bread on the table.

We were pretty quick to get involved to sort out bondholders because God forbid they would lose money, but when it comes to the little man in the street who is left carrying the can for state ineptitude he's labelled a bullying scumbag for taking a stand.

what ineptitude?

joebloggs32 · 18-07-2018 12:09PM

As far as i know in a PPP school the government puts little or no money up front. They put out a tender to bidders to build a school and then they sign a contract by way of a hire purchase type of agreement over say 20 to 30 years. During that time the school is maintained by a management company as part of the deal.
The beauty of it from the government's point of view is that large infrastructural projects get built without having to put up all the capital up front.
I know a principal of one such school. He says it has reduced his workload immensely as all the stuff to do with maintenance and cleaning etc is handled by the management company.

evolving_doors · 18-07-2018 12:10PM

Hurrache wrote: »

No, it's not a better analogy at all, unless you're claiming the teachers are going into the school to do a bit of carpentry, wire a few plugs and throw in a bit of carpentry after lunch?

If this were the case the school wouldn't be open in the first place!

Anyone in a union wouldn't be foolish enough to cancel something especially if a strike may not even go ahead.
What most unions do is issue a directive to it's members about what to do in the case of other unions in the same workplace.

This is what happened when the ASTI were striking, the union issued a notice to let other workers on-site (builders, delivery men, postal workers etc).

SligoBrewer · 18-07-2018 12:11PM

joebloggs32 wrote: »

As far as i know in a PPP school the government puts little or no money up front. They put out a tender to bidders to build a school and then they sign a contract by way of a hire purchase type of agreement over say 20 to 30 years. During that time the school is maintained by a management company as part of the deal.
The beauty of it from the government's point of view is that large infrastructural projects get built without having to put up all the capital up front.
I know a principal of one such school. He says it has reduced his workload immensely as all the stuff to do with maintenance and cleaning etc is handled by the management company.

I know 6 principals who wouldn't exactly be too happy...

evolving_doors · 18-07-2018 12:14PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

What businesses can teachers use since there are so many that treat their workers less well than the public sector? If you were to take that attitude into practice, the only services teachers could use would be state run.

No. Are lingus is fine.

evolving_doors · 18-07-2018 12:23PM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

It was people exercising their rights of repossession. If I was owed thousands of euros while a Government wanted to stand back and have nothing to do with it, you bet I'd be outside too.

If people looking to get paid for work they've done or reclaim goods they've sold on good faith is bullying, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .

PPPs cut corners in the short term and cost the Government more in the long term. Except now FG have been caught.

Well no... in the case of a company being wound up there is a pecking order for creditors.
So let's say a car company is wound up, the suppliers couldn't come to your house and take the car... now, if the car is still in possession of the company and on their premises in sure you still couldn't go onsite and take the car either in liu of payment not received for other things.

Was the school handed over?
If not, then there simply won't be a school opening in September.
If the school has been handed over then it's theft.

evolving_doors · 18-07-2018 12:29PM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

You call it bullying, I call it people taking a stand and trying to force the Government to do the right thing.

When a company folds it's just game over.
I tried to take a company to small claims court before but they had just folded... end of... game over. I can't go to their private dwelling and start taking their curtains or garden plants.

judeboy101 · 18-07-2018 12:51PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

When a company folds it's just game over.
I tried to take a company to small claims court before but they had just folded... end of... game over. I can't go to their private dwelling and start taking their curtains or garden plants.

If you supplied the curtains and plants and weren't paid, I'm sure they belong to you and not the company, even if you don't own the property.

evolving_doors · 18-07-2018 02:04PM

judeboy101 wrote: »

If you supplied the curtains and plants and weren't paid, I'm sure they belong to you and not the company, even if you don't own the property.

I see your point. Are they currently taking back everything they fitted/supplied?

judeboy101 · 18-07-2018 02:07PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

I see your point. Are they currently taking back everything they fitted/supplied?

Some are , others were given permission by Gardaí to do so, but pressure came on Gardaí from their masters in FG/FF and then they were prevented. We can't have brutons new schools not opening.

TheDriver · 18-07-2018 02:54PM

Is it like the line on invoices that all property remains the property of the company until paid for.
Regarding pickets, there's very strict laws governing industrial disputes which protects everyone but that doesn't including not wanting to pass pickets on your own decision. That leads to discipline action unless officially sanctioned by your union.

judeboy101 · 18-07-2018 02:59PM

TheDriver wrote: »

Is it like the line on invoices that all property remains the property of the company until paid for.
Regarding pickets, there's very strict laws governing industrial disputes which protects everyone but that doesn't including not wanting to pass pickets on your own decision. That leads to discipline action unless officially sanctioned by your union.

If "unofficially" staff collectively tell principal they won't pass, school has to close on health and safety so staff get paid. Happened during sari lock out. Most Tui and non union didn't passed but got paid.

EdgeCase · 18-07-2018 03:04PM

It very much depends on how the supply contracts were drawn up and you would need to get a court order to go in and repossess something. It’s not as simple as just going and taking it back.

Also they’re probably bespoke fittings and fixtures that have very little value removed from the building anyway, so all you’re doing is punishing the other victim of the dispute, which in this case isn’t even a commercial business, it’s the state and the children who badly need that new school.

The state (all of us) is a victim in this too. We paid for a school and the supplier folded without paying subcontractors.

All you can really do is proceed with the liquidation and figure it out.

TheDriver · 18-07-2018 03:34PM

judeboy101 wrote: »

If "unofficially" staff collectively tell principal they won't pass, school has to close on health and safety so staff get paid. Happened during sari lock out. Most Tui and non union didn't passed but got paid.

But it would be considered a wildcat strike and is a dangerous avenue.

Regarding the cheapest quote, you just can't win. We'd be up in front of a D committee if we didn't take the cheapest quote without good reason and in this case, there was no reason not to. And things won't change because the CAG is breathing down everyone's necks making sure every bit of expenditure is value. I can see this happening again and again in many areas

Trasna1 · 18-07-2018 05:13PM

TheDriver wrote: »

Is it like the line on invoices that all property remains the property of the company until paid for.
Regarding pickets, there's very strict laws governing industrial disputes which protects everyone but that doesn't including not wanting to pass pickets on your own decision. That leads to discipline action unless officially sanctioned by your union.

That doesn't carry any weight, you can write anything you want on an invoice.

It's what's in the contract that important.

joebloggs32 · 18-07-2018 07:13PM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

I know 6 principals who wouldn't exactly be too happy...

It must depend on who is running them

SligoBrewer · 18-07-2018 07:21PM

EdgeCase wrote: »

The state (all of us) is a victim in this too. We paid for a school and the supplier folded without paying subcontractors.

Are you honestly weighing up your losses and mine in this situation with those of someone who is owed €200k for furniture that they could return?

SligoBrewer · 18-07-2018 07:21PM

joebloggs32 wrote: »

It must depend on who is running them

Carillion and Sammon were the people involved I think.

EdgeCase · 19-07-2018 12:33PM

SligoBrewer wrote: »

Are you honestly weighing up your losses and mine in this situation with those of someone who is owed €200k for furniture that they could return?

I'm saying that in a situation like this is that everyone loses out.
The implication is that the state should pay twice for stuff it purchased as part of a contract and tender process that was entered into in good faith. If the suppliers' contracts are written in such a way that the seller still owns the property and has rights to repossession, then they should repossess it as it's clearly not been paid for.

However, I fail to see how removing fittings like railings is going to do anything other than incur more costs as those items are definitely not returnable to stock or usable elsewhere. Ultimately, that will just fall on the state / school to pay for all over again.

There is an actual liquidation process that tries to resolve those issues as best it can.

The whole situation is an absolute mess, but those are the risks of doing subcontracts under the current setup. There should be some kind of bond type insurance in place to mitigate those issues.

I just don't think that it should be a case that state i.e. all of us, end up paying for things twice over due to a screw up by a UK company going bust. Ultimately, that money just ends up coming out of the education budget which means things like school buildings, teachers' jobs, facilities, psychological services, support services and all of those things.

There is no nice solution to this, but the state isn't a bottomless money pit either.

It's a zero sum game, the money has to come from somewhere. So if the state pays for it, it ultimately comes from some other budget that was supposed to be spent on public service.

It's a terrible situation, but it should be dealt with through liquidation and by minimising everyone's losses, including the state and school's, which are very significant.

evolving_doors · 19-07-2018 08:00PM

It's on RTE Prime Time tonight!

madmac187 · 19-07-2018 08:51PM

This is why they are subcontractors they take the risk and make the windfall or take the risk and get burned.

Period. And this is coming from a construction professional.

evolving_doors · 19-07-2018 09:17PM

The nub is that the sub-contractors want the govt. to stump up.
Minister Bruton said (paraphrasing) that it's not the taxpayer who's failed to pay.
Ironically the govt. haven't paid the contractor yet as the schools haven't been handed over (well that's what we're being led to believe anyway). Contractor is bust... so they have to get a new contractor and then that contractor has to sort it out with the sub-contractor. The Govt can't step in mid liquidation and bypass the process just to be nice or fair!

I think the real question now is, who is going to be the new contractor??? It might be nice for some shrewd company to swoop in, put a few finishing touches and collect the cheque from the Dept. of Ed. for the full whack.
Maybe then, the new company can factor in a compensation of some sort with the sub-contractors before the Dept. will close the deal.

I doubt those new schools will be opening this coming August.

I seems that virtually no money has been handed over from the Govt , this is a good thing. I'd say if they had handed over a lot of money, companies could high tailed it earlier, no building, money gone.

AndrewJRenko · 21-07-2018 09:24AM

evolving_doors wrote: »

It might be nice for some shrewd company to swoop in, put a few finishing touches and collect the cheque from the Dept. of Ed. for the full whack.

That's not really how it works though.

evolving_doors · 21-07-2018 02:15PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's not really how it works though.

How does it work then?

Should teachers in the 5 carillion schools pass pickets put there by unpaid sub contr

Comments