Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: ESB Average salary 90,000 Deloitte Report

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member cyberianpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wherever I can see
    Posts
    16,728
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default ESB Average salary 90,000 Deloitte Report

    A new report indicates staggering inefficiencies in the ESB


    RTE

    staff is €92,000, but that at Poolbeg power plant in Dublin the figure is €142,000.

    The Deloitte report maintains high labour costs and inefficiencies at ESB power stations adds €100 million to costs, compared to its EU peers.

    Since 2002, electricity has jumped by 90%
    In a proper communist country these workers when found out would have been lined up against the wall & shot for corruption.

    In a capitalist system, with free competition, the 142,000 salary just wouldn't wash, a competitor would long since have undercut them.

    As is here nothing will be done especially as rubber-spined Bertie has taken a hit & is reeling into an election year. Dempsey has already been trotted out to tell people "don't be scared we won't implement the recommendations"

    This is quite simply an example of thievery, yes the ESB thugs & the union fat cats are within the law, but this sort of payment can reasonably be viewed as robbery, they are a leaglised monopoly upon whom we depend. Any attempt to take this money from them will result in strike.

    I would suggest the only reasonable remedy to this is the social ostracisation of these "workers". This will then give them an impetus to accept an honest rate of pay or market forces.

    cYp
    "Yawn , am I alive yet ?"

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    That surely cannot be right can it? 90,000 seems like a very high ammount.

    I worked in ESB HQ briefly a number of years ago, and my co-workers certainly did not earn 90 grand on average, far from it.

    Are these figures being perhaps distorted by ESB International which makes a lot of money for the compaying doing international consultancy and would thus have much higher wage profile than is otherwise typical.

    What's the median wage?
    Ich mag Steine!

  3. #3

    Default

    Those figures don't appear on the link cyberianpan has provided. Perhaps he was a link to the report itself, which might give some more detail on the salaries, and how they're distributed.

    Similarly, the full final sentence (which he seems to have cut off halfway through) should read "Since 2002, electricity has jumped by 90%, while gas has soared by 126%".
    Failed liberal traitors: http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member cyberianpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wherever I can see
    Posts
    16,728
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owenfeehan
    That surely cannot be right can it? 90,000 seems like a very high ammount.

    I worked in ESB HQ briefly a number of years ago, and my co-workers certainly did not earn 90 grand on average, far from it.

    Are these figures being perhaps distorted by ESB International which makes a lot of money for the compaying doing international consultancy and would thus have much higher wage profile than is otherwise typical.

    What's the median wage?
    Not sure, RTE is reporting the average as €92k, (Note also the RTE report updated in 18:07 & some things were edited out) . www.dcmnr.gov.ie doesn't yet have the full report. Already sounds like Dempsey has lost interest in it though. This report isn't the first suggestion that the wages in the power generation & network areas of ESB is high.


    cYp
    "Yawn , am I alive yet ?"

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    265
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default


    The 'staggering inefficiences' and price rises are there because of the introduction of competition and not because of wages (which are incorrect anyway).

    I'll recycle two posts* from the Energy Security thread which contained a comment on the members of the FI's similar idiotic mistake, on how high wages, union membership and low electricity prices were not mutually exclusive in the US prior to deregulation and on how Deloitte are not to be seen as an impartial source. They see the world through a blinkered idealogical prism which shines through in their resultant reports. Also feckin PPARS!

    HSE to suspend second computer project
    In June computer experts from the Department of Finance outlined serious concerns about FISP in a memo to the Department of Health. The memo focused primarily on the PPARs issue.

    They had "serious concerns at the nature and cost of the support services" being provided by Deloitte, which has been paid €13.5 million in 2005 alone.

    "We could not determine from the meeting what the nature of the value added being provided by Deloitte was," the memo said.

    There was also "no evidence" that the PPARs system, which has already cost €116 million, would reduce costs or increase efficiency. Deloitte has refused to comment.
    * from here and here

    Quote Originally Posted by Pax
    Quote Originally Posted by SPN
    Obsession with privatisation is the real cause of the energy struggle
    Between 2001 and 2004, ESB operating costs, including the purchase of increasingly expensive oil and natural gas, went up by only 5% a year. Meanwhile, electricity prices increased by over 40%. Since the price increase can't be put down to rising fuel costs or some fantasy 'wage racket', what is going on?

    The government wants what the authors want in the name of 'competition' and 'liberalising the market' . . . private sector companies producing electricity. But ESB prices have historically been so low that private companies couldn't turn a profit.

    To entice private operators, the government increased energy costs through price rises, stealth taxes and levies. People are paying for an ideological experiment in liberalisation and the eventual privatisation of significant sections of ESB.

    .....

    It is an economic and environmental imperative that we switch from a fossil-fuel based economy to a renewable energy-based one.

    But the article painted a backward-looking landscape of competing private companies wholly owning the generation plants. That was tried in Ireland and failed so completely that the government of the time had to establish ESB.

    Back in the 1920s, we had a plethora of private companies in the energy market. They made good profits but couldn't do the thing they were supposed to: provide electricity on a national scale.

    An epochal shift from fossil fuels will not be carried out by a fragmented and incoherent market. This is not a statist argument. This development can, and where possible should, take place with a range of partners such as private companies, multi-nationals, local authorities and non-profit organisations.

    But we will need a substantial player with decades of experience on a national scale. We will need large-scale industrial planning. We will require considerable investment in research, design and integration, especially in the area of wave and tidal power which has even greater potential than wind.

    .....

    We need a national vision similar to that being developed in Sweden, which is working for an oil-free economy by 2020. What we don't need are pricing policies and ideological experiments that create obstacles to efficiency and damage business, living standards and our environment.
    Interesting excerpts (for the full article link above to work it requires a registration (or use www.bugmenot.com login) to be input on the login page after here then it'll work) I particularly like the bit about the fact deprived round-the-houses statements of Constantin Gurdgiev and Peter Nolan )

    [quote:s4dsbiyj]THE attempt by Constantin Gurdgiev and Peter Nolan to explain high electricity prices failed to get to grips with the real causes, and made statements that have no basis in fact.

    In their article of 7 May 2006, 'Power corrupts, state monopoly power corrupts absolutely', it was argued that the average ESB wage stood at 95,000 or "around" 43 per hour. Where this figure comes from is a mystery.
    However the article a few posts up highlights the problem wrt the dearth of honest (not really new or radical) thinking
    "report on the energy market, which he commissioned from consultants Deloitte"
    Leaving aside the democratic regulation of large private energy corps I posted about on page 2 of this thread, in terms of economies of scale, purchasing (eh) power and lack of wasteful inefficiencies and allocattion of energy resources an ideal situation would be for the state to invest massively in large scale renewable projects.

    These investments will translate into economic growth in the future, the overall economy will benefit due to lower renewable energy costs as the output of non-renewable sources increase in price so it'll cost the consumer even less- as opposed to the increase in company share prices representing the loss to consumers back pocket from liberalisation...

    Then there's the unforeseen spin-offs because of jump start subsidisation of what are critical new technologies (which it seems we don't do – preferring to rely on fdi while the sun shines...). Couple this with subsidies for micro-renewables , insulation, forestry to reach EU average level, bio-fuels, public transport, spatial development with latter in mind etc..

    I mean if it was ok elsewhere for nuclear and for rural electrification here then why not?
    [/quote:s4dsbiyj]

    Quote Originally Posted by Pax
    Quote Originally Posted by david
    Quote Originally Posted by SPN
    A couple of points:

    1) We had the second lowest prices in the EU before the "Liberal Markets" ideology was brought in.

    2) High energy prices are as a result of the increasing costs of inputs. Gas and Oil are rising in price due to many factors, not least depletion, but the existence of "competition" in Ireland has Jack Diddly to do with it.

    3) Home owners cannot access independent supply yet. The reason for this is that newcomers cannot make a profit at the price the ESB charges to homeowners. If we want "competition" we will have to have higher retail prices first.

    4) Access to Energy is going to be an important issue in the coming decades, as the Commissioner completely understands, so it is incumbent that the control of Energy be for the the public good, and not at the whim of private multinational energy companies.

    Ideology is all very well, but when it doesn't work we should move on to something that does.
    Very good points. I'm loathe to say your points are obvious - they are in one sense - but all other senses, those points need making and making often because they appear to be not understood by the majority of our representatives here in Ireland.

    Competition without strict and enforceable regulation does not, in the medium to long term, bring down prices: the opposite is true. Lining shareholders' pockets is not in the 'public good' but instead is the sole aim of 'liberalisation'. The obscene profits reported by the oil companies recently is proof of that. Individual energy/pollution quotas is ultimately the answer.
    The points are obvious but unfortunately, the opposite points are made more often. The reps will listen to some one sided crap on the mainstream prominent RTE or whatever more so than something based on real figures and the history of such policies elsewhere

    The lowest prices (ignoring the separate argument of from whats safely available/usable...) can be obtained, as SPN hinted at, by the 'old' state/democratically run ESB route, next cheapset is a highly (democratically) regulated system similar to the one which existed in the US prior to the economic 'liberals' cozyed up to the corporate energy collectives *.

    The latter system can be best described as a two-part formula: Democratic Regulation with 1) Complete open public access to information; and 2). Full public participation in setting prices and standards of service.

    Although both changes would naturally be fiercely opposed by the energy corps and their reps.

    *(which is ok as they're 'individuals' eh on legal paper....)

    For more on the latter system read the
    http://www.democracyandregulation.com/ site


    Consumers not benefiting from deregulation
    DEMOCRACY AND REGULATION: How the Public Can Govern Essential Services

    http://www.democracyandregulation.com/d ... d=11&row=0

    DEMOCRACY AND REGULATION: How the Public Can Govern Essential Services.doc

    .....1DEMOCRACY AND REGULATION

    AN INTRODUCTION


    England’s residents pay 44 percent more for electricity than do American consumers, 85 percent more for local telephone service, and 26 percent more for natural gas -- and by European standards, British prices are low. In the developing world, where costs for labor and other inputs are lower than in the USA, prices are typically far higher. Domestic electricity customers in Sao Paulo, Brazil, pay nearly US$0.13 per kilowatthour, 58 percent more than the US average of $0.08.1

    Except in a few places (such as California, where price regulation was temporarily replaced by markets), Americans pay astonishingly little for high quality public services, yet low charges do not suppress wages: US utility workers are the nation’s industrial elite, with a higher concentration of union membership than in any other private industry.2

    In our travels throughout Europe, Latin America and Asia, we have been asked for the secret to America’s low prices. Experts expect us to answer with a technical discussion of pricing formulae or a description of the energy futures-trading market. Most are surprised by our response: low-cost, high-quality service rests on a simple, two-part formula we call Democratic Regulation:

    1. Complete open public access to information; and
    2. Full public participation in setting prices and standards of service.
    .....
    (Note:the prices in the above are not measured against the lower prices of publicly owned firms, and are now no longer relevant in the US given the de-regulation in the states...)

    So,... recycle, recycle!
    See my post here
    [quote:s4dsbiyj]....But as regards the UK, in the first eight years domestic electricity generation prices declined by only about 2 per cent. In the same period, the prices of the fuels used to generate electricity dropped like a stone; 30 per cent for coal and 40 per cent for gas. Industry wide, 46 percent of workers lost their jobs.

    Where did the money go?

    Some went to price reductions for the large customers. But over the first seven years, combined generation company accounts, filed with the regulator, showed a profit increase of 172 per cent i.e, almost triple profits before privatisation!
    National Power, paid dividends to stockholders of in excess of the entire value of the corporation at the time of privatisation. A university of Cambridge study published by the World Bank concluded that at that time power prices are 1-4 percent higher while National Power's and PowerGen's share tripled.....
    Link attack!


    Residential-Industrial gap figure below (source UK DTI 2002)
    see graph here

    (1) http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=211&row=2


    (2) David Hall, Electricity restructuring, privatisation and liberalisation: so
    http://www.psiru.org/reports/9910-E-U-Prob.doc


    (3) Steve Thomas, Electricity liberalisation: The beginning of the end
    http://www.psiru.org/reports/2004-09-E-WEC.doc

    (4) Steve Thomas, The Impact of Privatisation on Electricity Prices in Britain
    http://www.psiru.org/reports/2002-08-E-UKImpactPriv.doc

    (5) Steve Thomas, Why retail electricity competition is bad for small consumers: British experience
    http://www.psiru.org/reports/2002-09-E-UKRetailElec.doc


    (6) Dexter Whitefield, Public Service or Corporate Welfare (pluto press, 2001) p.168
    http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=114742
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare


    (7) Andrew Sweeting, “The Effect of Falling Market Concentration on Prices, Generator Behaviour and Productive Efficiency in the
    England and Wales Electricity Market” (MIT Economics Department, May 2001)
    http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/2001-003.pdf
    http://www.faculty.econ.northwestern.ed ... yAug04.pdf

    (8 ) Phew![/quote:s4dsbiyj]



    Also see the Sunday Tribune article below (here requires IE and bugmenot)


    Obsession with privatisation is the real cause of the energy struggle



    THE attempt by Constantin Gurdgiev and Peter Nolan to explain high electricity prices failed to get to grips with the real causes, and made statements that have no basis in fact.

    In their article of 7 May 2006, 'Power corrupts, state monopoly power corrupts absolutely', it was argued that the average ESB wage stood at 95,000 or "around" 43 per hour. Where this figure comes from is a mystery.

    The CSO reports that the average wage in the energy sector is 25.36 per hour. Average wages and salaries, including management, are less than 60% of the figure used in the article.

    A network technician will earn 32,000 a year starting off, about the average industrial wage.

    The argument was that public enterprise is a 'wage racket'. Yet if one compares wages in Ireland with those in the UK electricity market, one discovers they are about the same, even though the UK sector is privatised.

    The ESB wage bill increased by 2% in real terms over the past two accounting years. In the past five years, ESB gained over 350,000 new customers, while the number of employees declined. We can only conclude that the allegation of a 'de facto wage racket' is ideologically inspired.


    The assertion that high prices are caused by lack of competition is equally groundless.

    Between 2001 and 2004, ESB operating costs, including the purchase of increasingly expensive oil and natural gas, went up by only 5% a year. Meanwhile, electricity prices increased by over 40%. Since the price increase can't be put down to rising fuel costs or some fantasy 'wage racket', what is going on?

    The government wants what the authors want in the name of 'competition' and 'liberalising the market' . . . private sector companies producing electricity. But ESB prices have historically been so low that private companies couldn't turn a profit.

    To entice private operators, the government increased energy costs through price rises, stealth taxes and levies. People are paying for an ideological experiment in liberalisation and the eventual privatisation of significant sections of ESB.

    There's more. Consumers pay an invisible 'investment levy'. Despite the fact that the grid is a resource of vital national importance, the government, unlike those in most other countries, does not provide the capital investment. Instead, the cost is paid through higher electricity bills. Even the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment stated that this policy "unnecessarily adds to energy costs and undermines our commercial competitiveness".

    The government also adds a public obligation levy, again criticised by ET&E, and higher VAT. Businesses lose competitiveness and householders face higher living costs, all because of the government's ideological obsession with privatisation.

    The article was correct to highlight the need to develop native renewable resources.

    It is an economic and environmental imperative that we switch from a fossil-fuel based economy to a renewable energy-based one.

    But the article painted a backward-looking landscape of competing private companies wholly owning the generation plants. That was tried in Ireland and failed so completely that the government of the time had to establish ESB.

    Back in the 1920s, we had a plethora of private companies in the energy market. They made good profits but couldn't do the thing they were supposed to: provide electricity on a national scale.


    An epochal shift from fossil fuels will not be carried out by a fragmented and incoherent market. This is not a statist argument. This development can, and where possible should, take place with a range of partners such as private companies, multi-nationals, local authorities and non-profit organisations.

    But we will need a substantial player with decades of experience on a national scale. We will need large-scale industrial planning. We will require considerable investment in research, design and integration, especially in the area of wave and tidal power which has even greater potential than wind.

    There is one body in existence that can carry that out: ESB.

    Rather than selling off an efficient and competitive public enterprise we should harness the skills, productivity and experience of the ESB workforce to make the transition to renewable technologies while maintaining competitive prices.

    We need a national vision similar to that being developed in Sweden, which is working for an oil-free economy by 2020. What we don't need are pricing policies and ideological experiments that create obstacles to efficiency and damage business, living standards and our environment.
    http://www.democracyandregulation.com/

    {edit to fix link}

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    {edit to fix link}
    Can you edit it to fix your ultrawide graph?
    Worth breaking my "no sig" rule for: http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    ESB must be privatised and broken up. Only then will we see an end to these extortionate price-hikes (28% for next year). We need competition aswell to prevent the continuation of monopolism. :x

    Noel Dempsey has made a cop-out by rejecting the proposals to sell off parts of the ESB. He is capitulating to the unions who want to control everything. :x

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    very detailed report - would take a day to go thru it all. from a 30 minute read it seems a very solid piece of work.

    seems brave of the minister to dismiss the recomendation of splitting up the ESB

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Somewhere between Akureyri and Ushuaia
    Posts
    8,999
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    You've got it all wrong! Can't you see it was the Rainbow Government's fault, pandering to those bloody unions? We've had Bert the misLeader in power for almost ten years, he's sorted out all the cartels and closed shops. The best leader the country has ever had, I keep hearing.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    15,537
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach
    ESB must be privatised and broken up. Only then will we see an end to these extortionate price-hikes (28% for next year). We need competition aswell to prevent the continuation of monopolism. :x

    Noel Dempsey has made a cop-out by rejecting the proposals to sell off parts of the ESB. He is capitulating to the unions who want to control everything. :x
    When our electricity system was run for the benefit of the Citizen, we had the second lowest electricity prices in Europe.

    Since our electricity system was tweaked to provide profit opportunities for Multinational Corporations the price has risen to the second highest in Europe.

    We currently don't have "competition" in the domestic electricity "market" because the price charged by the ESB is too low to allow a competitor make a profit.

    Don't worry though, sooner or later the PDs will get their way and domestic electricity prices will be increased enough to facilitate "competition".
    "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Mark Twain

    “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoléon Bonaparte

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •