Would you let Michael O'Leary run the health service here for a year?

FGR · 02-12-2008 07:57PM

It was mentioned that Michael O'Leary's primary interest is maximising shareholder dividends whilst also creating and maintaining a long term strategy for the company in which he works.

I'd like to think he would use the same approach with the Tax payers being the shareholders. You wouldn't see the social welfare system being as generous as it is anymore with him in charge.

I'd like to see him take control. I can't help but remember his appearance on The Right Hook last year where he completely refused to even consider such a thing as he knows the senior civil servants would be impossible to deal with.

syklops · 02-12-2008 07:57PM

dfx- wrote: »

I wouldn't let Michael O'Leary run a tap.

:P

Why not? What do you base that on?

He is currently running one of the most successful airlines in the world.

Red Alert · 02-12-2008 08:11PM

The government should headhunt him and fire those incompetent back slapping fools like the gang running Fas.

Terry · 02-12-2008 08:12PM

He can't do any worse than the current shower of halfwits, most of whom probably got in because their daddy had some sway in their respective constituencies.

Bob the Builder · 02-12-2008 08:21PM

I'd give it to him for six months anyway, probably even a year.

He would fix problems that nobody else has the balls to fix.

darkdubh · 02-12-2008 08:22PM

Hoochiemama wrote: »

I dont see why everyone hates Michael O'Leary so much. His company does exactly what it says on the tin. It gets you from A to B for cheap as chips. Yeah theres bag taxes, credit card charges, charges for X and charges for Y but still when you add it all together its cheaper than Aer Lingus. They are rarely late, they never loose bags. Ive never had a problem with them and i've used them alot.

If this doesnt suit you, pay the extra bucks and fly Aer Lingus.

At the end of the day Michael O Leary is a brilliant business man and knows exactly how to make money, esp from a bad situation. Even his views on the budget when he was on the Ray D'Arcy show, they just made sense. I'd be for him running the country at this time. It'd be better than those shower of twats there now.

This might be so,but hes a prick.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 02-12-2008 08:26PM

Orange69 wrote: »

A glass of water would run the country better than the current peanut gallery...

No matter who you put there mate, there will always be problems and situations that the government cannot control or deal with. There will always be corruption and scams. The lies are not bound to one party but all

Well we wouldn't be called rip off Ireland if mick was in charge.

I like what he is trying to do with aer lingus :P

Terry · 02-12-2008 08:27PM

darkdubh wrote: »

This might be so,but hes a prick.

Why?
Why is he a prick?

Ruben Shrilling Undergarment wrote: »

No matter who you put there mate, there will always be problems and situations that the government cannot control or deal with. There will always be corruption and scams. The lies are not bound to one party but all

Well we wouldn't be called rip off Ireland if mick was in charge.

I like what he is trying to do with aer lingus :P

Changing "Aer" to "Cunning"?

beertons · 02-12-2008 09:18PM

A well known hospital has 2 wards closed, with a third rumoured to be closed in the new year due to funds. However the ceo of this hospital saw funds available for his lavish office, old solid wooden floors and oil paintings for the walls. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall to see what Mr O Leary would do to this guy.

Terry · 02-12-2008 09:27PM

Bob Kelso?

beertons · 02-12-2008 10:43PM

Sorry, I meant the director of the hospital. I'm not naming it either, no point in getting in trouble for letting some steam off.

Hoochiemama · 02-12-2008 11:06PM

darkdubh wrote: »

This might be so,but hes a prick.

He may be a prick, he may be the God, he may be the devil in disguise.... I dont really care, at the end of the day, hes a man who knows how to get a job done, and not only done, but done right, and maximised from every angle.

So I say here here to "the prick" running not only the Health Service, but the country.

PeakOutput · 02-12-2008 11:09PM

yep it needs to be run like a business accept instead of profit it just needs to break even and meet certain service level requirements

it definitely does not need to be a job for life for civil servants who do **** all

PeakOutput · 02-12-2008 11:14PM

Ruben Shrilling Undergarment wrote: »

There will always be corruption and scams.

ehhh no there wont. as soon as you bring in actual accountability from the top down and a few examples have been made people who used to think sure iv 20 pieces of post on my desk but i only really need to answer 5 to keep my job will soon buck up and need to make themselves valuable to the 'company' that is the health service

zeusnero · 02-12-2008 11:29PM

Red Alert wrote: »

The government should headhunt him and fire those incompetent back slapping fools like the gang running Fas.

well that'll never happen - why the hell would they bring in someone that's actually going to shake things up and bring in accountability - when Cowen himself actually comes out in support of his subordinates enjoying life to the max on the taxpayer.

The change we need is a change of Government (although it's anyones guess if the alternative would do much better once in power)

I wonder if O'Leary would actually consider running in the next election? Worst case scenario he gets a load of publicity for Ryanair... Then again by the time the next election comes around all the idiot Fianna Fail voters will have forgotten just what FF did to the country (assuming the economy has picked up and they can do a bonanza budget the year before the election)

Mark200 · 02-12-2008 11:58PM

When he was trying to get a job at loss-making Ryanair, he said he'd work for free if he could get 20% of any profits the company made.

The HSE could do something like that, offer him 20% of any money he saves.

anonymous_joe · 03-12-2008 12:02AM

The health service is a fairly bloated service, and streamlining would involve riding roughshod over countless interested parties.

Anyone who noticed the furore over the cancer service in teh NW, now I've no idea of whose in the right there, haven't been following the issue, but hte reaction was clear.

I'd wonder if an apolitical solution would be best? A group from all parties, or one with no political input at all.

O'Leary's a decent business manager, someone like that wouldn't hurt I suppose. I reckon the best people to say what needs to be done would be health professionals though.

beertons · 03-12-2008 12:13AM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The health service is a fairly bloated service, and streamlining would involve riding roughshod over countless interested parties.

O'Leary's a decent business manager, someone like that wouldn't hurt I suppose. I reckon the best people to say what needs to be done would be health professionals though.

We already have too many of them employed. They're called consultants. O Leary would employ the bare minimum for each hospital, and shaft the rest. Propper order too. Pay surgeons per operation, that'd cut a few waiting lists. Get rid of the cleaning companies from hospitals too. MRSA was unheard of when the matrons/sisters/nurses cleaned the wards themselves.

anonymous_joe · 03-12-2008 12:19AM

beertons wrote: »

We already have too many of them employed. They're called consultants. O Leary would employ the bare minimum for each hospital, and shaft the rest. Propper order too. Pay surgeons per operation, that'd cut a few waiting lists. Get rid of the cleaning companies from hospitals too. MRSA was unheard of when the matrons/sisters/nurses cleaned the wards themselves.

Thing is, does any of us know what the problems facing the health service are? We all know about MRSA and waiting lists. But what else is there?

Paying surgeons for operations would increase the number of operations and almost certainly decrease the standard. Hardly ideal. A more efficient bureaucracy wouldn;t hurt, but could you afford to make x amount of people redundant - especially given the current economic climate. All manner of questions crop up.

bug · 03-12-2008 12:20AM

Yes.
Why not? How much worse can it get?

I'd love to see a national poll on this.

beertons · 03-12-2008 12:29AM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Thing is, does any of us know what the problems facing the health service are? We all know about MRSA and waiting lists. But what else is there?

Paying surgeons for operations would increase the number of operations and almost certainly decrease the standard. Hardly ideal. A more efficient bureaucracy wouldn;t hurt, but could you afford to make x amount of people redundant - especially given the current economic climate. All manner of questions crop up.

Personally I'd have no problem letting people go. Supply and demand, too much supply......the government know this too. A class of newly graduated nurses last year were given a list of recruitment agencies in Canada, they were told that the hospitals they did their training in could not offer them jobs. And at the same time an eastern government paid the Irish government to employ 35 nurses from their country. ( I don't know the exact country, maybe india)

I want to know why the HSE is so untouchable.

PeakOutput · 03-12-2008 12:31AM

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Thing is, does any of us know what the problems facing the health service are? We all know about MRSA and waiting lists. But what else is there?

the problem is the majority of the budget is used to pay for administration and a bloated underperforming administration at that, cut the fat

anonymous_joe · 03-12-2008 12:33AM

beertons wrote: »

Personally I'd have no problem letting people go. Supply and demand, too much supply......the government know this too. A class of newly graduated nurses last year were given a list of recruitment agencies in Canada, they were told that the hospitals they did their training in could not offer them jobs. And at the same time an eastern government paid the Irish government to employ 35 nurses from their country. ( I don't know the exact country, maybe india)

I want to know why the HSE is so untouchable.

It shouldn't be, and I think it's awful, but I doubt the government's ever going to cut a load of jobs atm.

tedstriker · 03-12-2008 12:35AM

PeakOutput wrote: »

the problem is the majority of the budget is used to pay for administration and a bloated underperforming administration at that, cut the fat

You mean Mary Harney?

anonymous_joe · 03-12-2008 12:54AM

tedstriker wrote: »

You mean Mary Harney?

Wow. Original.

anonymous_joe · 03-12-2008 01:00AM

PeakOutput wrote: »

the problem is the majority of the budget is used to pay for administration and a bloated underperforming administration at that, cut the fat

Ah just saw this now. True. But as I said, I doubt the government would want to cut the fat at the moment.

Bob the Builder · 03-12-2008 01:04AM

beertons wrote: »

I want to know why the HSE is so untouchable.

Thats why PPARS failed.

It was going to highlight lazy people and make them work harder, and remove the need for layers of management.

People don't like work, and the people in charge of PPARS were the ones going to suffer so they got rid of it.

It was a shame, because PPARS I was a success and PPARS II would have a success also. The one project that was actually going to work.

bug · 03-12-2008 01:13AM

PeakOutput wrote: »

the problem is the majority of the budget is used to pay for administration and a bloated under performing administration at that, cut the fat

When you say admin staff are you talking about the ones on 23K, 40K or 50K+?

Which ones? Because the "face" of the HSE admin, those who file your medical records,pull them for the surgeons, answer the phone, ring you from the Wafferin clinic to make an appointment etc, would approx earn 40K a year Max if they've been there a good few years. Those are the lower grades, mostly because you have to deal with the actual day to day.

The real "fat" so to speak is in the higher admin grades. Why are they're higher admin grades?
Well, 1) "Career progression", if you're a dufus with no qualifications other than a lifelong commitment to the PS there has to be somewhere for you to go. I truly believe that this is why higher admin grades exist in the public service. If they didn't you'd leave.

2) manager accountability; these "interim" grades essentially exist to buffer overpaid senior managers who don't have the time/ability/decision making skills/accountability, to manager their own staff.

In the second instance you can see where this culture of accountability came from. FAS man gets caught allegedly doing stuff FAS man shouldn't and what do they do? A BOARD looks into it. Why? Because said individual should be tried in a court not investigated by a board, but this sort of culture breeds through the ranks. And then there's the unions, by GOD, dont get me bloody started.

yes, Michael, no shiz O Leary for Prez.

Teg Veece · 03-12-2008 01:28AM

Philush wrote: »

he sort the country out not a bother,he knows what hes at,at the moment brian cowens runnin the place-an accountant, in my own experience, i know there can be exceptions, but you never leave an accountant in charge of anything, because unless it all works out in the facts and figures on paper they wont take chances etc etc,

Wasn't Michael O'Leary also an accountant though?

Would you let Michael O'Leary run the health service here for a year?

Comments