Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Deposit return scheme (recycling)

Options
1194195196197199

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,973 ✭✭✭NeinNeinNein


    I am well aware of Time and Motion, so don't need to look it up but thanks for your patronising tone.

    You now are backtracking on your statement that "it's not really extra work just different work" by acknowledging that a staff member may not complete all tasks in their shift and extra staffing could be necessary.

    I wonder who will ultimately pay for the extra staff likely needed due to this pathetic shambles of a 'recycling' scheme.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,021 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    I don't think it would be a good idea to have checkout operators emptying or fettling RVMs.

    You could be going into a store and see them pulling dirty bins around the yard. Then when you finish shopping they'd be checking you out handling your groceries. Not a good look.

    There is no contradiction in saying most of them.

    By saying most I was allowing for local or owner operated shops. These tend to have a less structured approach to staffing. For instance you could have the owner's kids helping out after school.

    As for managers and supervisors I left them out because I thought the discussion was about floor/storeroom staff who would actually be working on the RVMs.

    The post I was replying to said these workers would have to do extra work for no extra money. My point is that they are just being diverted to a different task within their contracted hours.

    On reflection managers and supervisors have problems too so thanks for pointing that out.

    These issues are not really within the remit of Re-turn and more likely to be addressed locally

    I'm not making a stand on a hill or otherwise, just discussing DRS.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭SteM


    Thanks, maybe it's because the Lidl ones only accept credit/debt card.



  • Administrators Posts: 53,836 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    IMO the media need to refuse to cover these Re-Turn puff pieces until they are willing to give us the firm and specific details. Number of returns is totally meaningless without context.

    As for the bit about not considering non-deposit stock, I am sceptical that any significant volume of non-deposit stock existed. We all remember the absolute **** show at the start when it turned out that deposits were charged on practically everything, despite Re-Turn telling us only logo'd stock was in scope for this.

    I'm not sure if I've ever avoided the deposit for a can or bottle since this scheme came in to play, whether that item had a logo or not.

    Re-Turn are fudging it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser


    Bumped



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser


    Bumped



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser


    Bumped



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser


    Bumped



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser


    Bumped



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser


    Bumped



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser


    Thumped



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser


    Bumped



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,021 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Sorry if you felt patronised that was not my intention.

    There is no back tracking they are two separate issues.

    When I posted about staff shifts I was referring to floor/storeroom staff who would normally tend to RVMs.

    They work the number of hours contracted and during that time carry out a number of tasks.

    As long as they aren't made to stay beyond the end of a shift they are at no loss.

    Another poster since introduced the problems faced by managers and I acknowledged that.

    As for who will pay, ultimately the customer pays for everything.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,354 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    I used one at a self service till today in Supervalu. (Edited - it was a credit card only one)

    Seamless process start to finish.



  • Registered Users Posts: 30,196 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I used an ALDI voucher at their self service, scanned the barcode.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,510 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly




  • Registered Users Posts: 823 ✭✭✭bog master


    And for today's experience. Stockpiled my cans as the Overlords at ReTurn advised not to return during the bank holiday weekend, Approx 40 odd cans, six in and machine shuts down and msg appears contact a staff member. It did print my receipt in all fairness. Take trolley with near 30+ cans and crutch to try and find a staff member. Finally do, they are clueless, let me get the manager. A conservative 5 minute wait, then arrives. Apologizes profusely, but the staff on duty trained in the operation and troubleshooting is on his lunch and will not be available for 30 minutes at least!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭nachouser




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭SteM


    It was only installed last week, maybe software needs to be updated on it or something.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,510 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    sic We don't want to hear about any problems, we're too busy counting the money we're making



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,277 ✭✭✭Archeron


    This will be a huge success, its been bench marked against decades old successful models across europe. Sure there's been a full public consultation and everything. I mean dont blame us, whoever knew people ordered shopping online, or had disabilities. Or no car. Not out fault at all at all.

    And you know, teething problems, bound to happen. We have your money.

    And severe price rises, but sure thats the publics problem.

    Report the full numbers? Oh seasonality and true reflections and stuff, give us a year at least. Thatll be over quarter of a billion taken from the public pocket but we'll definitely have a grasp of this decades old copied system by then.

    They've been (badly) attempting to feed the public a trough of sh*te since this started and failing miserably.

    Remember the school children, who im guessing are from the 1950s, that would end the litter problem by scavenging in the bushes for dirty cans?

    I know some have mentioned the positive of people in dire need searching bins for deposit containers, but if thats the only plus from this whole farce, that makes me sad.

    And i dont see any other plus points at the moment.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,021 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Don't be sad. There won't be a word about it in a few months.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    The details aren't in any one place from what I can see.

    There's a piece in here: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/deposit-return-scheme-do-bottles-and-cans-have-to-have-the-re-turn-logo-do-i-have-to-bring-them-back-to-the-same-shop-all-your-questions-answered/a330031332.html

    Q. Is the taxpayer funding it?

    No, it is intended to be self-funding. The producers will pay a fee to Re-turn for each container placed on the wholesale market.

    They will also charge the deposit fee to the retailers who buy their products and pass that on to Re-turn.

    Re-turn will collect the returned bottles and cans and sell them to industry so it will also have revenue from that source.

    Retailers, who have already paid the deposit fee to the producers, will charge it to shoppers, pay it back for returns and get reimbursed by Re-turn for every deposit reclaimed.

    They also get a handling fee of 2.2c for each container returned by reverse vending machine and 2.6c for each taken back over the counter.

    That should make it cost-neutral to shops, although there will be an outlay if they buy a reverse vending machine because they cost from €12,000.

    This isn't really going into detail on how it is funded.

    Theres a quote:

    “Unredeemed deposits will be reinvested into the scheme and used to fund recycling initiatives to help Ireland achieve future recycling targets,” he said.

    from here:

    https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/re-turn-refuses-reveal-salaries-32910145

    (Another worrying article about lack of transparancy in general)

    The details in the public domain are low on "detail" and based on the lack of transparacny in whatever detail is there, fluffy waffle and makeup of the board , I would be concerned that the unreturned deposits will assist the "Producers" in reducing the fees they will pay to Re-turn to put items on the wholesale market.

    There's literally no oversight here to see that this doesn't happen or that "Unredeemed deposits will be reinvested into the scheme and used to fund recycling initiatives to help Ireland achieve future recycling targets".

    If you are happy enough to believe what you read - great - can you let me know where you are seeing how this scheme is being funded?



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,021 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    It's not a question of whether I believe what I read.

    Everyone can read what is available and form their own opinion.

    So, funding comes from four sources

    1 Seed funding provided by Bank of Ireland €27.5m

    2 Producer fees

    3 Unredeemed deposits

    4 Sale of recyclables

    You will find most of your concerns regarding oversight etc. are covered here.

    https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2024/si/33/made/en/print



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy




  • Registered Users Posts: 18,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    All but the first source is very low on detail and from what I have seen Re-Turn have yet to go into any detail on poinst 3 and 4 - very fluffy and fuzzy altogether.

    Points 2 and 3 are of greatest interest.

    Are you happy with the level of transparancy over the details of funding from 2,3, and 4 so far or indeed the transparancy around directors fees for the organisation?

    I would argue that the highest level of funding is point 3 (I don't have figures to back this up unfortunately, just rudamentary numbers I have seen).

    I would suggest that due to the makeup of the board it's likely this will supliment greatly funding avenue number 2 - yet again letting the producers off the hook.

    All but an idiot would draw these conclusions form the information in the public domain.

    The most important parts of that legislation you have linked to is:

    THE DEPOSIT

    18. (1) The deposit shall be as set out in Schedule 1.

    (2) The deposit shall be itemised as a separate line item on any invoice, receipt, credit note, dispatch and delivery docket containing the price of in-scope products.

    (3) The Minister may set, and adjust, the deposit amount or amounts after consultation with an approved body, where it appears that –

    (a) the cost is insufficient to incentivise consumers to return in-scope bottles and in-scope containers to the scheme, or

    (b) the revenues returned to the approved body from the scheme are exceeding or are insufficient to cover operational costs,

    once and only once in each financial year beginning with the financial year following the financial year in which this Regulation comes into operation.

    (4) The refundable nature of the deposit shall be made clear to the consumer in all material promoting the scheme and all points of sale.

    I would expect that point 3b will come into play this time next year when cash reserves at ReTurn contine to rise due to non-returned items - so hopefully a reduction in the DRS fee/tax (Half joking here, I only see this fee going one direction)

    Functions of an Approved Body

    5. (1) An approved body shall –

    (a) carry out all the functions for which they are approved effectively and in a financially sound manner,

    (b) achieve separate collection rates for recycling of in-scope bottles in accordance with the Directive,

    (c) achieve EU recycling targets for in-scope containers,

    (d) establish and maintain a register of all producers, retailers, return point operators and distributors,

    (e) establish and maintain a register of all retailers who are exempted from the obligation to take back in-scope bottles and in-scope containers under Regulation 14(2)(g);

    (f) audit the producers registered with it in accordance with these Regulations,

    (g) audit the retailers registered with it in accordance with these Regulations,

    (h) audit the return point operators registered with it in accordance with these Regulations,

    (i) audit the distributors registered with it in accordance with these Regulations,

    (j) issue a certificate of registration to all producers, retailers, return point operators and distributors who fulfil their obligations under these Regulations,

    (k) revoke a certificate of registration from all producers, retailers, return point operators and distributors who fail to fulfil their obligations under these Regulations,

    (l) issue a certificate of exemption to retailers who are exempted from the obligation to take back in-scope bottles and in-scope containers under Regulation 14(2)(g),

    (m) engage with approved waste collectors to ensure separate collection, appropriate processing and counting of in-scope bottles and in-scope containers,

    (n) provide the Minister, the Agency, the Central Statistics Office and the relevant local authority with information relating to producers, retailers, return point operators and distributors registered with it in accordance with these Regulations,

    (o) gather information from producers, retailers, return point operators and distributors in connection with their participation in the Deposit Return Scheme,

    (p) provide the Minister, the Agency and a local authority with all reasonable information they may seek in order to verify compliance with these Regulations and relevant requirements of the Directive,

    (q) advise the Minister of any developments in the area of waste management which in the opinion of the approved body could improve the effectiveness of the scheme including the potential future benefits of such a scheme for other materials and new waste collection methodologies,

    (r) advise the Minister on the appropriate level of deposit and the type of deposit or both.

    There's really no detail in the leglistation around reporting requirements but based on the above, one would think that whatever reporting requirements are in there, aren't being followed.

    The leglislation does not contain anything on oversight of Re-Turn themselve, heaven forbid.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,021 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    There's further reading in the OJ (Official Journal) references given at the end of the SI. This is one of them.

    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2019.155.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2019%3A155%3ATOC



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,510 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,021 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Thanks for your reply.

    For obvious reasons I won't comment on the conclusions in the first part of your post.

    Concerning the S I, I suggest that anyone interested in DRS read it for themselves.

    For ease I repeat the link here.

    https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2024/si/33/made/en/print



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement