The Fine Gael thread

[armaghniac]

What surprises me most about the 26 county irish population is the willingness to accept the orders of the rulers over and over again. Those who question or challenge these elite are "scumbags" (as viewed by rossfan). It's pretty much Stockholm Syndrome. No wonder Britain had no issue overrunning the place.

I don't think you understand democracy. The people vote for representatives and these legislate, those who challenge the authority  of the people are in scumbags. Now I am as pissed off as anyone else about the incompetent and venal nature of Irish politicians, but they are allowed get away with this because of the superficial analysis of issues and this water campaign with its risible claims of paying for things twice and so on does nothing to improve the situation, quite the reverse.

[macdanger2]

It would be ridiculous to set up Irish Water without hiring the people currently running the system, what would you then do with these people.

Same as you do in normal commercial business ( what should happen in aerlingus)
Cherry pick the cream to lead the company and hire additional baggage free staff in to work hard and efficiently

Those who don't make the cut - do what happens all other public sector workers, subsume them into departments that require staff.
Either that or they quit.
That this question is even coming up shows how much the tail wags the dog in too much of Irish 'work culture'. Too many sheep following blindly and no progressive thinking or leadership save from a few like Michael Oleary Dermot Desmond etc.

Lynchbhoy, you're not really grasping the TUPE concept. Whether you are public or private sector and you take over a business you are legally obliged to take the staff that comes with them, it's the law. You can't cherry pick, you can't take half, you have to take all, look it up, it's the LAW!

What Micheal O'Leary would do is make half of them redundant, the government doesn't do compulsory redundancy, it would lead to all out strikes from the public sector, something we can't afford. So they will probably give voluntary redundancy, the problem there is it's never the useless f**kers that take that, only the good ones who will get a job elsewhere.

Precisely! And you're left with the bone-idle fckers who know they're on a good number and won't get it as cushy anywhere else.

Exactly but if the govt haven't introduced any measures to sack useless civil servants in the last few years, we'll never see it.

[Rossfan]

What surprises me most about the 26 county irish population is the willingness to accept the orders of the rulers over and over again. Those who question or challenge these elite are "scumbags" (as viewed by rossfan). It's pretty much Stockholm Syndrome. No wonder Britain had no issue overrunning the place.

I don't think you understand democracy. The people vote for representatives and these legislate, those who challenge the authority  of the people are in scumbags. Now I am as pissed off as anyone else about the incompetent and venal nature of Irish politicians, but they are allowed get away with this because of the superficial analysis of issues and this water campaign with its risible claims of paying for things twice and so on does nothing to improve the situation, quite the reverse.

Armagh - it's worse than trying to talk to a child -at least the child will grow up and become reasonably intelligent at some stage.
The "Rulers" are those elected by a majority of the people - not Divine right monarchs.
As for opposition to Water Charges - what percentage of the 4.6m people who live in the 26 protested last Saturday?
Why weren't they protesting in 2010 when Water Charges and domestic property tax were included as a condition of the Bailout?
The kind of cnuts who go about attacking meter installers( installing them in the public footpaths), kidnapping Govt ministers, abusing the President etc are nothing but SCUMBAGS.
Now let's all grow up in this feckin Country and realise if we want to be an Independent State -we have to pay for it.

[Lar Naparka]

It would be ridiculous to set up Irish Water without hiring the people currently running the system, what would you then do with these people.

Same as you do in normal commercial business ( what should happen in aerlingus)
Cherry pick the cream to lead the company and hire additional baggage free staff in to work hard and efficiently

Those who don't make the cut - do what happens all other public sector workers, subsume them into departments that require staff.
Either that or they quit.
That this question is even coming up shows how much the tail wags the dog in too much of Irish 'work culture'. Too many sheep following blindly and no progressive thinking or leadership save from a few like Michael Oleary Dermot Desmond etc.

Lynchbhoy, you're not really grasping the TUPE concept. Whether you are public or private sector and you take over a business you are legally obliged to take the staff that comes with them, it's the law. You can't cherry pick, you can't take half, you have to take all, look it up, it's the LAW!

What Micheal O'Leary would do is make half of them redundant, the government doesn't do compulsory redundancy, it would lead to all out strikes from the public sector, something we can't afford. So they will probably give voluntary redundancy, the problem there is it's never the useless f**kers that take that, only the good ones who will get a job elsewhere.

That's fair enough point and it goes a long way towards explaining why Irish Water wound up with a load of employees who are surplus to its needs.
However, the point I've been trying to make all along is that Irish Water and the government are to blame for much of the controversy we're enmeshed in now.
A mix of arrogance and incompetence is the best way to describe the manner in which both parties have handled affairs since the board was set up. It was a case of diktat ratjer than discourse from beginning to end.
Take TUPE for example.
Can you or anyone else recall any attempt by either party to explain the reasons why this was done?
I certainly can't and, more importantly, it's clear than no one on the "No" side of the divide heard it either.

[AZOffaly]

It would be ridiculous to set up Irish Water without hiring the people currently running the system, what would you then do with these people.

Same as you do in normal commercial business ( what should happen in aerlingus)
Cherry pick the cream to lead the company and hire additional baggage free staff in to work hard and efficiently

Those who don't make the cut - do what happens all other public sector workers, subsume them into departments that require staff.
Either that or they quit.
That this question is even coming up shows how much the tail wags the dog in too much of Irish 'work culture'. Too many sheep following blindly and no progressive thinking or leadership save from a few like Michael Oleary Dermot Desmond etc.

Lynchbhoy, you're not really grasping the TUPE concept. Whether you are public or private sector and you take over a business you are legally obliged to take the staff that comes with them, it's the law. You can't cherry pick, you can't take half, you have to take all, look it up, it's the LAW!

What Micheal O'Leary would do is make half of them redundant, the government doesn't do compulsory redundancy, it would lead to all out strikes from the public sector, something we can't afford. So they will probably give voluntary redundancy, the problem there is it's never the useless f**kers that take that, only the good ones who will get a job elsewhere.

That's fair enough point and it goes a long way towards explaining why Irish Water wound up with a load of employees who are surplus to its needs.
However, the point I've been trying to make all along is that Irish Water and the government are to blame for much of the controversy we're enmeshed in now.
A mix of arrogance and incompetence is the best way to describe the manner in which both parties have handled affairs since the board was set up. It was a case of diktat ratjer than discourse from beginning to end.
Take TUPE for example.
Can you or anyone else recall any attempt by either party to explain the reasons why this was done?
I certainly can't and, more importantly, it's clear than no one on the "No" side of the divide heard it either.

You can offer redundancy as part of a TUPE transition. You cannot make it mandatory, but you can offer it.

[Lar Naparka]

It would be ridiculous to set up Irish Water without hiring the people currently running the system, what would you then do with these people.

Same as you do in normal commercial business ( what should happen in aerlingus)
Cherry pick the cream to lead the company and hire additional baggage free staff in to work hard and efficiently

Those who don't make the cut - do what happens all other public sector workers, subsume them into departments that require staff.
Either that or they quit.
That this question is even coming up shows how much the tail wags the dog in too much of Irish 'work culture'. Too many sheep following blindly and no progressive thinking or leadership save from a few like Michael Oleary Dermot Desmond etc.

Lynchbhoy, you're not really grasping the TUPE concept. Whether you are public or private sector and you take over a business you are legally obliged to take the staff that comes with them, it's the law. You can't cherry pick, you can't take half, you have to take all, look it up, it's the LAW!

What Micheal O'Leary would do is make half of them redundant, the government doesn't do compulsory redundancy, it would lead to all out strikes from the public sector, something we can't afford. So they will probably give voluntary redundancy, the problem there is it's never the useless f**kers that take that, only the good ones who will get a job elsewhere.

That's fair enough point and it goes a long way towards explaining why Irish Water wound up with a load of employees who are surplus to its needs.
However, the point I've been trying to make all along is that Irish Water and the government are to blame for much of the controversy we're enmeshed in now.
A mix of arrogance and incompetence is the best way to describe the manner in which both parties have handled affairs since the board was set up. It was a case of diktat ratjer than discourse from beginning to end.
Take TUPE for example.
Can you or anyone else recall any attempt by either party to explain the reasons why this was done?
I certainly can't and, more importantly, it's clear than no one on the "No" side of the divide heard it either.

You can offer redundancy as part of a TUPE transition. You cannot make it mandatory, but you can offer it.

Yeah but my point is that nobody from IW or the government side made any attempt to explain this to the electorate, thereby adding to the already high level of unrest.

[AZOffaly]

I'm with you. I think the whole thing stinks to high heaven. One of the first points of emphasis on any project to clean up politics should be the absolute insistence that every department publishes a proper set of accounts, which itemise money incoming, spend and planned expenditure.

[StephenC]

It would be ridiculous to set up Irish Water without hiring the people currently running the system, what would you then do with these people.

Same as you do in normal commercial business ( what should happen in aerlingus)
Cherry pick the cream to lead the company and hire additional baggage free staff in to work hard and efficiently

Those who don't make the cut - do what happens all other public sector workers, subsume them into departments that require staff.
Either that or they quit.
That this question is even coming up shows how much the tail wags the dog in too much of Irish 'work culture'. Too many sheep following blindly and no progressive thinking or leadership save from a few like Michael Oleary Dermot Desmond etc.

Lynchbhoy, you're not really grasping the TUPE concept. Whether you are public or private sector and you take over a business you are legally obliged to take the staff that comes with them, it's the law. You can't cherry pick, you can't take half, you have to take all, look it up, it's the LAW!

What Micheal O'Leary would do is make half of them redundant, the government doesn't do compulsory redundancy, it would lead to all out strikes from the public sector, something we can't afford. So they will probably give voluntary redundancy, the problem there is it's never the useless f**kers that take that, only the good ones who will get a job elsewhere.

Precisely! And you're left with the bone-idle fckers who know they're on a good number and won't get it as cushy anywhere else.

Exactly but if the govt haven't introduced any measures to sack useless civil servants in the last few years, we'll never see it.

Exactly. IMO this is the biggest failure of this government. There was an opportunity to bring real change to our public service during the downturn, as such an environment creates the mood for change. Instead, FG shied away from that and now that things are improving the opportunity is gone. The Irish Water problems are symptomatic of the issues in our Public Service.

[macdanger2]

It would be ridiculous to set up Irish Water without hiring the people currently running the system, what would you then do with these people.

Same as you do in normal commercial business ( what should happen in aerlingus)
Cherry pick the cream to lead the company and hire additional baggage free staff in to work hard and efficiently

Those who don't make the cut - do what happens all other public sector workers, subsume them into departments that require staff.
Either that or they quit.
That this question is even coming up shows how much the tail wags the dog in too much of Irish 'work culture'. Too many sheep following blindly and no progressive thinking or leadership save from a few like Michael Oleary Dermot Desmond etc.

Lynchbhoy, you're not really grasping the TUPE concept. Whether you are public or private sector and you take over a business you are legally obliged to take the staff that comes with them, it's the law. You can't cherry pick, you can't take half, you have to take all, look it up, it's the LAW!

What Micheal O'Leary would do is make half of them redundant, the government doesn't do compulsory redundancy, it would lead to all out strikes from the public sector, something we can't afford. So they will probably give voluntary redundancy, the problem there is it's never the useless f**kers that take that, only the good ones who will get a job elsewhere.

Precisely! And you're left with the bone-idle fckers who know they're on a good number and won't get it as cushy anywhere else.

Exactly but if the govt haven't introduced any measures to sack useless civil servants in the last few years, we'll never see it.

Exactly. IMO this is the biggest failure of this government. There was an opportunity to bring real change to our public service during the downturn, as such an environment creates the mood for change. Instead, FG shied away from that and now that things are improving the opportunity is gone. The Irish Water problems are symptomatic of the issues in our Public Service.

And the thing is, FG would have been the ones most likely to do (i.e. likely to lose the least amount of votes from it). None of the parties are willing to tackel the public sector unions and their protection of under-performing workers

[armaghniac]

And the thing is, FG would have been the ones most likely to do (i.e. likely to lose the least amount of votes from it). None of the parties are willing to tackel the public sector unions and their protection of under-performing workers

The problem is that for every out and out loafer, there are 10 who are willing to work but who are profoundly unproductive because of crap management and crap ways of ways of doing things. No politician is truly interested in efficient ways of doing things because such a system would not involve political interference and manipulation. But the voters haven't asked the politicians to do better, contenting themselves with lazy characterisations about unions and the like.

[macdanger2]

And the thing is, FG would have been the ones most likely to do (i.e. likely to lose the least amount of votes from it). None of the parties are willing to tackel the public sector unions and their protection of under-performing workers

The problem is that for every out and out loafer, there are 10 who are willing to work but who are profoundly unproductive because of crap management and crap ways of ways of doing things. No politician is truly interested in efficient ways of doing things because such a system would not involve political interference and manipulation. But the voters haven't asked the politicians to do better, contenting themselves with lazy characterisations about unions and the like.

I think you're underestimating (@ 9%) the amount who could be described as "out and out loafers", I'd put it at at least twice that.

And the unions are very much part of the problem - do you think they'd countenance the civil service becoming a meritcoracy? Not a chance. A more efficient public service would reduce the number of workers and less workers = less union subscriptions & less power for the unions.

[armaghniac]

And the thing is, FG would have been the ones most likely to do (i.e. likely to lose the least amount of votes from it). None of the parties are willing to tackel the public sector unions and their protection of under-performing workers

The problem is that for every out and out loafer, there are 10 who are willing to work but who are profoundly unproductive because of crap management and crap ways of ways of doing things. No politician is truly interested in efficient ways of doing things because such a system would not involve political interference and manipulation. But the voters haven't asked the politicians to do better, contenting themselves with lazy characterisations about unions and the like.

I think you're underestimating (@ 9%) the amount who could be described as "out and out loafers", I'd put it at at least twice that.

And the unions are very much part of the problem - do you think they'd countenance the civil service becoming a meritcoracy? Not a chance. A more efficient public service would reduce the number of workers and less workers = less union subscriptions & less power for the unions.

The point is that there is signficant variation in performance in the public service, with the same union agreements. I'd say that if the least efficient department/council was simply brought to the performance of the best there would be a significant improvement. The difference in these different departments is that some are managed properly and have created a culture of getting things done, others are not. But at present there is no reward for doing better, there are no proper statistics and the media/ forum poster lumps everyone in together anyhow.

[macdanger2]

And the thing is, FG would have been the ones most likely to do (i.e. likely to lose the least amount of votes from it). None of the parties are willing to tackel the public sector unions and their protection of under-performing workers

The problem is that for every out and out loafer, there are 10 who are willing to work but who are profoundly unproductive because of crap management and crap ways of ways of doing things. No politician is truly interested in efficient ways of doing things because such a system would not involve political interference and manipulation. But the voters haven't asked the politicians to do better, contenting themselves with lazy characterisations about unions and the like.

I think you're underestimating (@ 9%) the amount who could be described as "out and out loafers", I'd put it at at least twice that.

And the unions are very much part of the problem - do you think they'd countenance the civil service becoming a meritcoracy? Not a chance. A more efficient public service would reduce the number of workers and less workers = less union subscriptions & less power for the unions.

The point is that there is signficant variation in performance in the public service, with the same union agreements. I'd say that if the least efficient department/council was simply brought to the performance of the best there would be a significant improvement. The difference in these different departments is that some are managed properly and have created a culture of getting things done, others are not. But at present there is no reward for doing better, there are no proper statistics and the media/ forum poster lumps everyone in together anyhow.

So if you're the manager of an underperforming department (with say one or two individuals setting a low bar for the entire team), what options are available to you?? The manager is effectively toothless, he has neither carrot nor stick. And if as you suggest, the fault lies with the manager himself, his own manager is in a similar position of not being able to do anything.

[Mayo4Sam]

I'm with you. I think the whole thing stinks to high heaven. One of the first points of emphasis on any project to clean up politics should be the absolute insistence that every department publishes a proper set of accounts, which itemise money incoming, spend and planned expenditure.

Lar Id agree with you too, it's been a shambolic display of poor management and lack of backbone that will cost this state billions, all because the government didn't stick to the plan they had which was reasonably thought out.

I think the idea of explaining TUPE to the likes that are abusing Michael D or Joan B is a step too far, even for the finest of educators. Youd get the same level of misinformation being handed out by the Paul Murphys and co

[AZOffaly]

It can probably be summarised thus. TUPE is a law to work on behalf of the employee, not on behalf of the legacy or the new company. It is structured so that no employee is *worse off* in terms of Ts&Cs following the change.

Making someone redundant, involuntarily, as a result of Transition will be handled as a dismissal, and as transition is not grounds for dismissal, the company would lose an unfair dismissal case.

The employee cannot lose out as a result of TUPE. It's up to the new company to get creative if they feel they have to, but that's going to cost them and has to be voluntary.