Should criminal proceedings be taken against these people?

Where To · 15-01-2013 02:06PM

Boombastic wrote: »

For the taxis the tenders awarded need to be investigated. Who awarded the contracts at that price? What relationship do they have with the taxi company?

The workers could have at least spoke up about it. I've heard nothing from the politicians or the media about this centre before now? How long has this been going on for?

The tenders are awarded to the most expedient operator. Most HSE taxi contracts are being done at ridiculously low rates, would you be in favour of all these being increased at extra cost to the HSE?

Boombastic · 15-01-2013 02:10PM

Where To wrote: »

The tenders are awarded to the most expedient operator. Most HSE taxi contracts are being done at ridiculously low rates, would you be in favour of all these being increased at extra cost to the HSE?

A lot of taxis are used to transfer scans, there are more cost effective ways of sending these scans but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of the HSE.

I'd be in favour of a standard national rate to be paid to taxis by the HSE.

I had to look up this:)

Expedient - Adjective
(of an action) Convenient and practical, although possibly improper or immoral.
Noun
A means of attaining an end, esp. one that is convenient but considered improper or immoral.

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:12PM

Boombastic wrote: »

Extra payments were for weekend work as I understand it. I think the public do need to know the extent of it and be kept informed of what follow up action (if any) is taken.

Do they? I'm not sure exactly what the need to know, yes they have the right to assess services but to what extent. If the have a particular question then it should of course be answered, through FOI for example.

Where are you getting you info for the weekend payment by the way?

Boombastic · 15-01-2013 02:13PM

Odysseus wrote: »

Do they? I'm not sure exactly what the need to know, yes they have the right to assess services but to what extent. If the have a particular question then it should of course be answered, through FOI for example.

Where are you getting you info for the weekend payment by the way?

read OP and link:)

They need to know
How many involved?
Who authorised these payments? Who is responsible and why weren't they held accountable? How high up was it sanctioned?
How were the people recruited?
Do they have any relationship with the incompetent mangers?
How long has it been closed and how many staff involved at what levels?

Where To · 15-01-2013 02:15PM

Boombastic wrote: »

A lot of taxis are used to transfer scans, there are more cost effective ways of sending these scans but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of the HSE.

I'd be in favour of a standard national rate to be paid to taxis by the HSE.

That wouldnt be at all viable. If I was getting the same rate for a run from Donegal to Dublin as a run from the Beaumont to the Mater, I would be happy enough, but not many others would be.

edit, yeah that's why I used the word expedient, my prices are so low they are borderline immoral

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:15PM

Boombastic wrote: »

For the taxis the tenders awarded need to be investigated. Who awarded the contracts at that price? What relationship do they have with the taxi company?

The workers could have at least spoke up about it. I've heard nothing from the politicians or the media about this centre before now? How long has this been going on for?

Exactly why should the workers have to speak up about this? If the organisation has passed this, what obligation is on them?

Also do you I'm am not allowed contact the media about my HSE work, AFAIR there is something in my contact about it. All media contact has to be passed by the HSE Communications Dept.

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:20PM

Boombastic wrote: »

read OP and link:)

They need to know
How many involved?
Who authorised these payments? Who is responsible and why weren't they held accountable? How high up was it sanctioned?
How were the people recruited?
Do they have any relationship with the incompetent mangers?
How long has it been closed and how many staff involved at what levels?

Until we know why it was sanctioned, we don't know if any wrong was done. I not sure if the public have a right to all that info, if this is to be investigated those charge with doing so have a right to that info. Where it is passed on from there I'm not sure, but no service has to show the public every decision that has been made.

We charge other to do that for us.

Doc Ruby · 15-01-2013 02:21PM

Odysseus wrote: »

Also do you I'm am not allowed contact the media about my HSE work, AFAIR there is something in my contact about it. All media contact has to be passed by the HSE Communications Dept.

Have you ever claimed mileage yourself?

Think_then_talk · 15-01-2013 02:22PM

We should look at the people at the top,they get rewarded for the biggest
f/up's in the state. When they leave the public office we give them the
Golden handshake and a top job paid with public monies.
As for the (hse) well you cant blame the worker who was told by their
manager (you are now to report to unit X @ 8am) The manager is the one
who has to answer for his/her folly.
But wait tis the (hse) they have no proper communications system €201 million later [ppars]. Pity someone can't come up with a system for them use.
http://tinyurl.com/ax7ttdr

MagicSean · 15-01-2013 02:23PM

It's a pretty big assumption to assume this is fraudulent and not just bad management. Were they required to report there or were they just pretending to? Were they reporting there and then being sent somewhere else? Were they assigned there officially but working elsewhere instead?

bluecode · 15-01-2013 02:23PM

Similar abuses of the system are all over the place. Probably not just in the PS.

One similar I heard of was for on call staff in a hospital. They would get paid for a session morning and afternoon. But outside those times any work was paid by the task. They had a lunch break outside the session. So they did all the tests during lunch and went to lunch later.

On a good day they could net nearly €700 Euros a day on top of their already considerable salary.

They didn't get fired when the loophole was discovered or even disciplined.

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:25PM

Where To wrote: »

That wouldnt be at all viable. If I was getting the same rate for a run from Donegal to Dublin as a run from the Beaumont to the Mater, I would be happy enough, but not many others would be.

edit, yeah that's why I used the word expedient, my prices are so low they are borderline immoral

From what I could see, some taxi frims seems to be chancing their arm, and maybe getting away with it in some cases. This is the nearest I have seen to fraud here so far, and that is the taxi driver/firm not the HSE

I know I haven't seen a taxi book for over 4 years now never mind ordering one. I used to be able to order one if needed, so maybe one or two a year. Now if I needed one I think I would have to ring my services admin building 10 miles away and by pass my manager and go straight to the Area OPs Manager, now if I have to bother her for a taxi I am wasting a lot of time.

Boombastic · 15-01-2013 02:26PM

Whistleblowers legislation

Transparency

Staff are guilty by being complicit in the fraud.

@whereto: Paid by mile (in pounds?? :pac:), so you go further, you get paid more. If they don't like it, tough!

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:27PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Have you ever claimed mileage yourself?

I will gladly answer that, but first if I may ask why do you ask?

Where To · 15-01-2013 02:31PM

Odysseus wrote: »

From what I could see, some taxi frims seems to be chancing their arm, and maybe getting away with it in some cases. This is the nearest I have seen to fraud here so far, and that is the taxi driver/firm not the HSE

I know I haven't seen a taxi book for over 4 years now never mind ordering one. I used to be able to order one if needed, so maybe one or two a year. Now if I needed one I think I would have to ring my services admin building 10 miles away and by pass my manager and go straight to the Area OPs Manager, now if I have to bother her for a taxi I am wasting a lot of time.

They can't get away with on their own though, payments have to be sanctioned

Doc Ruby · 15-01-2013 02:34PM

Odysseus wrote: »

I will gladly answer that, but first if I may ask why do you ask?

Yeah, you've pretty much already answered it.

When we get comments like this,

"Until we know why it was sanctioned, we don't know if any wrong was done. I not sure if the public have a right to all that info, if this is to be investigated those charge with doing so have a right to that info. Where it is passed on from there I'm not sure, but no service has to show the public every decision that has been made."

what happens in the public sector stays in the public sector guff, complete with circling the wagons and spinning so hard the foundations of the building risk damage, displays the wrong attitude. And then ye wonder why there are so many public sector roasting threads.

The public sector is absolutely accountable to the public, in particular financially, any organisational information not related to someone's private life should be available for inspection. Most of it is, in fact, although there may be a fee under the freedom of information act.

We'll take your money and you'll like it seems to be the general approach. This has to stop.

Where To · 15-01-2013 02:37PM

Boombastic wrote: »

Whistleblowers legislation

Transparency

Staff are guilty by being complicit in the fraud.

@whereto: Paid by mile (in pounds?? :pac:), so you go further, you get paid more. If they don't like it, tough!

I like your thinking, but that's not how it works in the real world.

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:41PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Have you ever claimed mileage yourself?

The more I think about it Doc, the more I have to ask what me claiming milage has to do with the topic here, since we are not even really takling about staff mileage cliams.

However, I saifd I would answer so it is a bit long, but there is a reason for it.

I am based in one clinic as my main base, but I have to travell during work hours to see clients in two other clients, as well as travel to meeting in admin building, seeing clients in the various jails, hospitals etc.

As of last year we no longer get paid to travel to most meetings only to see clients. I haven't claimed travel in over a year, why?

I commute on a bike, compared to the rate for a car 1lt [I think] 82c per mile, for a bike it was 18c a mile.

In order to claim you must have your insurance indemified [sp] again with the bike and bike insurance being what it is over here, it to do so it would cost me an extra 1000e to claim 18c a mile. So I no longer claim. They change the level around the indemity last year which made it impossible for me to claim.

So I now pay for my own travel, I could get a bus pass off them but I would do that.

But with meetings no longer being paid for travel, staff have to decide whether they will attend a meeting. So staff who are needed are dropping out of meeting as they cannot afford the travel, in some cases it could be a 10 mile in others 50.

Anyway as I said I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic but I hope I answered your question.

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:43PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Yeah, you've pretty much already answered it.

When we get comments like this,

"Until we know why it was sanctioned, we don't know if any wrong was done. I not sure if the public have a right to all that info, if this is to be investigated those charge with doing so have a right to that info. Where it is passed on from there I'm not sure, but no service has to show the public every decision that has been made."

what happens in the public sector stays in the public sector guff, complete with circling the wagons and spinning so hard the foundations of the building risk damage, displays the wrong attitude. And then ye wonder why there are so many public sector roasting threads.

The public sector is absolutely accountable to the public, in particular financially, any organisational information not related to someone's private life should be available for inspection. Most of it is, in fact, although there may be a fee under the freedom of information act.

We'll take your money and you'll like it seems to be the general approach. This has to stop.

So you posted this whilst I was writing up the answer to your question. Now that you read it do you still hold the above opinion?

Boombastic · 15-01-2013 02:44PM

Odysseus wrote: »

................
But with meetings no longer being paid for travel, staff have to decide whether they will attend a meeting. So staff who are needed are dropping out of meeting as they cannot afford the travel, in some cases it could be a 10 mile in others 50.
.............

Instead of travelling to meetings, The meetings should be done over skype or some other type of software and cut out all the travel expenses.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-01-2013 02:45PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its always funny when these threads come along and someone responds with "but private sector workers" as if they were two teams in a match.

Nobody gives a feck about private sector workers since nobody is obliged to pay their wages.

Public sector workers on the other hand take a cut out of every bit of profit I make and every cent I earn, so I feel I have the right to be annoyed at tales of corruption (and this is far from the first), incompetence, and fraud.

Absolute bollocks, unless you're arguign that, because they're public sector, it's worth it.

My point is fraud is fraud. I don;t give a **** who's committing it, they should be charged and if found guilty, prosecuted. Pullign sector into it, as swfcork did, is a smokescreen, and claiming "bashing" is bull****. Show me where there was unfair bashing before his/her post.

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:47PM

Boombastic wrote: »

Instead of travelling to meetings, The meetings should be done over skype or some other type of software and cut out all the travel expenses.

Some people don't even have email. It is not always an option, but when they are they are used, in my experience.

hyperborean · 15-01-2013 02:50PM

HAHA, would be easier getting a guard into court than getting a HSE employee in, 50% of the PS with a mighty union,

No chance of this going to court,

Doc Ruby · 15-01-2013 02:51PM

Odysseus wrote: »

So you posted this whilst I was writing up the answer to your question. Now that you read it do you still hold the above opinion?

Depends, do you still feel the public has no right to financial information from the public sector?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Absolute bollocks, unless you're arguign that, because they're public sector, it's worth it.

My point is fraud is fraud. I don;t give a **** who's committing it, they should be charged and if found guilty, prosecuted. Pullign sector into it, as swfcork did, is a smokescreen, and claiming "bashing" is bull****. Show me where there was unfair bashing before his/her post.

This is barely even English. I do not care if people in a company defraud the company. Its not my business and I have no interest in it.

I do care if public sector workers defraud the government, because my taxes are paying for them. I have no difficulty paying taxes, but I for damn sure want value for money. And so should everyone else.

Simple really.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-01-2013 02:55PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Depends, do you still feel the public has no right to financial information from the public sector?

This is barely even English. I do not care if people in a company defraud the company. Its not my business and I have no interest in it.

I do care if public sector workers defraud the government, because my taxes are paying for them. I have no difficulty paying taxes, but I for damn sure want value for money. And so should everyone else.

Simple really.

Em... you're paying for corporate fraud via your taxes whether you like it or not.

I'm not dividing anyone here, just pointing out the obvious. Swfcork was the one who tred to turn it into a sector issue, not me.

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 02:56PM

Where To wrote: »

They can't get away with on their own though, payments have to be sanctioned

Yeah, well some has to sign it off, I really wonder especially with that 8.33 a mile example was that a mistake from both sides, taxi and HSE.

From my experience it is some low paid worker dealing with that payment, so I find it very difficult to not see it as a mistake. If it was a regular payment I am sure that reporter would have made a much bigger deal of it.

From the HSE side I still have not seen anything criminal yet

Doc Ruby · 15-01-2013 03:01PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Em... you're paying for corporate fraud via your taxes whether you like it or not.

I'm just as vocal about corporate fraud that affects the taxpayer, for example the banks. 99% of corporate fraud does not affect the taxpayer though, to say otherwise is complete nonsense.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I'm not dividing anyone here, just pointing out the obvious. Swfcork was the one who tred to turn it into a sector issue, not me.

It is a sector issue. If it was Dunnes employees skimming off the till, who cares?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-01-2013 03:02PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm just as vocal about corporate fraud that affects the taxpayer, for example the banks. 99% of corporate fraud does not affect the taxpayer though, to say otherwise is complete nonsense.

It is a sector issue. If it was Dunnes employees skimming off the till, who cares?

Anglo Irish says it does effect the taxpayer.

Odysseus · 15-01-2013 03:03PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Depends, do you still feel the public has no right to financial information from the public sector?

This is barely even English. I do not care if people in a company defraud the company. Its not my business and I have no interest in it.

I do care if public sector workers defraud the government, because my taxes are paying for them. I have no difficulty paying taxes, but I for damn sure want value for money. And so should everyone else.

Simple really.

No my opinion has not changed, I never said they have not right, I said I'm not sure how much of a right they have.

As I said they can ask questions that is what FOI is there for, but how much info should just be declared I'm not sure. As I said those who are evaulating should have free access.

I don't buy the I pay taxes, you should answer to me, I don't I answer to my various managers and it then goes up that line.

I don't know why changing you opinion in the question I asked depends how I feel about my position.

MagicSean · 15-01-2013 03:05PM

hyperborean wrote: »

HAHA, would be easier getting a guard into court than getting a HSE employee in, 50% of the PS with a mighty union,

No chance of this going to court,

Well there is nothing to suggest this is criminal or fraudulent at all. In typical Indo fashion they give as little information as possible when they cant make a case and then they let others like yourself fill in the blanks. You can be sure if there was any evidence to suggest it was fraudulent they would have included it.

Should criminal proceedings be taken against these people?

Comments